Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February/21

Move of sub-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 reverse rename, per amended nomination

I see the following stub categories:
 * (Oops! Thanks for the catch, Grutness))
 * (Oops! Thanks for the catch, Grutness))
 * (Oops! Thanks for the catch, Grutness))

I propose moving the following categories for parallelism:
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to

And at this point, I'm choosing to leave this one alone, unless someone has a suggestion: Dawynn (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverse move - If anything, the move should be in the other direction, given that the permcats are of the form "Rail in Foo" rather than "Fooian rail". Note also the continental stub categories, and further that "British rail" is likely to produce ambiguity given British Rail. The Danish one is a red herring, BTW, since the "rail station" tree is separate. As to New Zealand, you can move it from the noun form (New Zealand) to the adjective form (New Zealand) or vice versa if you like, but it'll make no difference ;) Grutness...wha?  23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I started with the majority rule idea. But I have no objection to going the other ways, as long as everything ends up parallel.  Just to be clear, the reverse move would be:
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to and, provided each passes the 60 article mark
 * (See the previous request on this here. Note that category names were not previously approved)
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * Dawynn (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is fairly frequent mild argument about which way to go... but the permcats are often the way they are to reduce any confusion there might be with the adjectives, and certainly British Rail might cause concern here. I won't be too annoyed if consensus is for your original suggestioon though. Grutness...wha?  22:08, 22 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.