Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/September/12

to

 * 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

to
Nominator's rationale: Following a CfD on 2008 SEP 5, the subcategories of Category:Victoria (Australia) were all renamed with the disambiguator "(Australia)" to match the parent category. I propose changing the name of these stub categories to match all of these and their immediate parents, Category:Geography of Victoria (Australia) and Category:Rail transport in Victoria (Australia). Changes like this for non-stub categories are "speediable" under speedy criterion #6. (I don't think there's any need to change the name of Victoria-geo-stub, however, and it already creates text that says "This article about a location in Victoria, Australia." Same goes for Victoria-rail-stub) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy, does that look ugly. No-one bear to use a comma?  But given the other renamings, speedy rename for the sake of uniformity.  Alai (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was some talk of a preference for changing it to "Victoria, Australia" across the board after this initial change was made for conformity. If that happens, of course, this one will change again too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a certain mania for following parenthetical disambiguation in the article space (where it makes actual sense) into the deepest reaches of the category space, which makes for some odd reading in places. But at any rate, there are no stub-specific considerations, so mote it be.  Alai (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that at this date stamp I've added the rail stub category as well to this nomination (I've discovered its existence in the meantime ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but would prefer "Victoria, Australia" - will support whichever survives the proposed rename mentioned by GO. BTW, the templates should probably be changed to VictoriaAU-foo-stub too - what fun. Grutness...wha?  00:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, the category was renamed with parentheses, so it looks like the stub cat should follow suit. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 01:36, 28 September 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.

Template:Doug-episode-stub and

 * 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


 * Moved from tfd and cfd Grutness...wha?  00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Template

There are no applicable articles for this template and there most likely never will be any. It has no real purpose. TTN (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Category
 * Nominator's rationale: There are zero articles in the main category, so one for stubs is obviously unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is a stub type, I've moved these two debates to WP:SFD where they belong and merged them. Grutness...wha?  00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete as reasonable housecleaning measure. ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly speediably since it doesn't seem to have been used. Grutness...wha?  00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if it's *ever* been used, but it certainly seems to have been empty for some time. Speedy.  Alai (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal archives show that there were 115 articles that were suitable to be placed in the category when it was approved in November 2006. Were all the articles expanded past stub level?  Delete now, as there's no real need for empty stub categories.  Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps deleted? There was apparently something of a TV episode purge at some point.  Alai (talk) 14:54, 13 September 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.

Stub-rhetoric

 * 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

Peculiarly-named (definitely non-NG) redirect to Lang-stub - made nearly two years ago and only used on one article - which wasn't a stub. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:39, 12 September 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.