Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/November/3

Manchester-railstation-stub and Manchester-geo-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 moved (snowballed)

Per discussion over at WP:WSS/P, these should probably be renamed to GreaterManchester-railstation-stub and GreaterManchester-geo-stub respectively for uniformity and more intuitive scoping (i.e., they already feed Greater Manchester categories). Rename, keeping the current names as redirects. Grutness...wha?  23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional rename: Conditional that a bot (or a poor user!) will swap the old stub for the new one with the new name. --Jza84 | Talk  02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: the redirect will address my concern. Thanks, --Jza84 | Talk  14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: surely if the current one is turned into a redirect there'll be no need for a bot to change them? Nev1 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true, though when things are quiet at WP:WSS bot runs are occasionally done to empty redirects, IIRC. Grutness...wha?  10:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with other templates. Waacstats (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as long as the redirect is in place GRB1972 (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy move, as obvious, not needing admin action, and semi-snowballed. Alai (talk) 20:08, 5 November 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.

etc.

 * 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 no consensus at CfD

There's a discussion over at WP:CFD over renaming the parent and its offspring to. I'm just listing these here as an adjunct to that nomination. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary
 * → probably no change necessary


 * I would rather football or football(soccer) but think we should follow the lead of the CFD. Waacstats (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too, given that "Association" tends to imply the English Football Association - which doesn't control the others, but whatever they do at CFD should be mirrored here. Grutness...wha?  23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As the instigator of the adjoining CfD, I oppose the change of most of these. The only ones that need changing are the ones that use "football (soccer)" in the title. Ones that use "football" are fine as they are. The United States one should not change either, as they commonly refer to association football as "soccer". I have stricken out all of the ones that don't need changing. – PeeJay 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok then. I had gathered vaguely that some in the cfd discussion wanted all the "football" cats changed, so went on a mind-numbing tagging spree. Never mind...Her Pegship  (tis herself) 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth considering the New Zealand one as well - due to a change of name by the ruling body of the sport in NZ last year, categories to do with New Zealand football/soccer have a missmatch of names (some with soccer in brackets, some not) - they'll probably need to be cleared up both here and at CfD. Grutness...wha?  11:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll reinclude the New Zealand clubs stub category in this nom. Since there's still a fair bit of confusion about the common name for the sport in New Zealand, "association football" should suffice for now. – PeeJay 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: CfD closed with no consensus. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the CfD is closed, I thought I would chime in and say that PeeJay's changes looked spot on. -- Chuq (talk) 23:10, 12 November 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.