Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/17

Luxembourg

 * 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The result of the debate was Withdrawn. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And this is why demonyms are a problem. The following categories all use the term "Luxembourgian", which is an alternative name for the language of Luxembourg (also called Luxembourgisch) but is not the usual adjectival demonym for the country (which is usually either simply Luxembourg - as listed here - or Luxembourgish). Luxembourgers speak Luxembourgisch/Luxembourgian, but they are Luxembourg/Luxembourgish people and live in Luxembourg/Luxembourgish buildings in Luxembourg/Luxembourgish cities. As such, the following categories need renaming: Standard WP practice seems to be to use "Luxembourgish", so perhaps the latter names are preferable. Grutness...wha?  12:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn. Grutness...wha?  21:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * &rarr; or
 * &rarr; or
 * &rarr; or
 * &rarr; or
 * &rarr; or
 * &rarr; or
 * &rarr; or
 * Every category we have on Wikipedia uses Luxembourgian, except for Category:Luxembourgish language and Category:Luxembourgish-language films. See Category:Luxembourgian people by occupation, for example. Seems like a much more significant change would be needed than just these stub categories, if you believe there's something not right about Luxembourgian in this context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm. very odd. Okay, I'll withdraw this, since it's going to require more thought. It's strange that the article texts and most of the titles use Luxembourgish rather than Luxembourgian, whereas the categories do the opposite. Something needs looking at... Grutness...wha?  21:38, 24 December 2010 (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.

Karachi-sport-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 Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just created Pakistan-sport-stub after proposing it at WP:WSS/P, andf there are a small handful of stubs it can be used on, so it's upmerged. Amazingly, we already had this unused template for just one city in the country. It seems like overkill, and it should almost certainly be deleted, especially since no other city in the world has a separate sport-stub. Grutness...wha?  11:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's genuine reason - it's overkill, unnecessary and redundant. Mar4d (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2010 (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.

Indiana-sports-stub/ and Indiana-basketball-team-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 Indiana-basketball-team-stub, Delete others. Dawynn (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of odd sport-stub types... these two have, between them, 18 articles - waaay below threshold - and no other US states (or national subdivisions of any country) have similar templates. What's more, the name of the sport-stub template is non-standard (it should be Indiana-sport-stub, not indiana-sports-stub). There's no indication that either of these stub types were ever proposed, either - which isn't too surprising (I doubt if they would have been approved). At the very least these need upmerging along with a template name change, but really there's no reason why these exist at all, so deletion is probably a more sensible move. Grutness...wha?  11:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, at least 16 states have state-basketball-team-stub templates, they're just almost all upmerged, see Category:United States basketball team stubs. I agree that the Indiana-sports-stub should be deleted, as there are no other general sports-by-state categories, but the basketball team one is actually following a general pattern and should probably be upmerged. Dana boomer (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I can live with that one remaining as an upmerged type. Grutness...wha?  21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)