Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February/16


 * 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 discussion was delete category, upmerge template, create two new related templates

Has shrunk to the point where it's not really a necessity to keep this separate - just nine stubs, and hardly likely to be lost among the fewer than 200 chess stubs if it's upmerged. A further proposal which might be useful is for separate upmerged Chess-tournament-stub and Chess-org-stub templates, given that over 40 of those stubs are for tournaments and around 30 are for associations and federations. Grutness...wha?  07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, upmerge and a good shout on the two templates. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2011 (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.

German building and structure stub categories

 * 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 discussion was upmerge the two remaining undersized categories Several German states have their own building and structure stub categories - with one exception - they are all seriously undersized. Unless it is possible to populate them to somewhere near the 60-stub threshold, the following should be upmerged: It may just be undersorting, and if it is I'll happily withdraw this proposal - but if it's not, then upmerging will be the simplest/best option. Grutness...wha?  07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (37 stubs)
 * (20 stubs)
 * (10 stubs)
 * (26 stubs)
 * (32 stubs)
 * (14 stubs)
 * Another one to add to my weekend todo list otherwise upmerge, the parent is hardly overflowing. Waacstats (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing noms for two which are now past threshold (well done, Waacstats, or whoever else it might have been who got Bavaria and Berlin to the threshold). The others are at 22, 34, 46, and 16 stubs respectively now. Still a chance some of them might reach threshold, especially Hesse and Hamburg. Grutness...wha?  11:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also managed to get Hesse up to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha?  12:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And Hamburg...just... Grutness...wha?  00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did my best, but couldn't get either of the other two above 45 stubs, so upmerging still seems the best option for them. Grutness...wha?  23:29, 10 March 2011 (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.

Lanark-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 discussion was delete

I'm sorry, but this one is surely at the faintly ridiculous level. Lanark is a town of 8,000 people in Scotland. The category on Lanark only has nine articles, so the likelihood of there being 60 stubs (or even 30, given that there is a WikiProject) look remarkably remote. We have stub types for Glasgow and Edinburgh, but those are the only cities large enough to really warrant them in Scotland - and if we were to have more, Lanark would be a long way down the list (Stirling or Aberdeen, maybe, but one for Lanark is, to say the least, overkill). A separate stub template for Lanark is useless for WP:WSS, and for general editing use as well, and is totally unnecessary for the Lanark WikiProject since they're already using a banner assessment template which does all the stub template can and more besides. Delete. Grutness...wha?  07:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are starting stub templates for places of 8000 we will soon have more of them than anything, I live in a fairly rural part of wales but have two towns of greater than that size within 10 miles and would never consider stub templates for either. (That is a delete) Waacstats (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2011 (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.