Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/June/14

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 Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename to

Support, for the reasons given. Grutness...wha? 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support  As per nom for orthogonality of Category:Australia rail stubs.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The result of the discussion was Rename and upmerge. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and badly named template. If needed, then it should be at {{CentralAm-history-stub}}. But it's questionable whether it is needed or whether separate country templates might be better. At the very least a rename (with deletion of the current name) is necessary, and very likely also an upmerge of the category. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename -- I just created this stub because I was working on a Central American history stub, and noticed that {{SouthAm-hist-stub}}, {{SEAsia-hist-stub}}, etc. exist already, and felt that there should be one for Central American history articles as well (Sorry for not proposing it -- I didn't realize I was supposed to, and will do so in the future). I'm open to renaming it however you like, but don't think that it should be deleted unless you are going to remove all of the other "region"-hist-stubs as well (which I wouldn't be opposed to -- I just want it to be consistent). Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, though the other ones you name are old ones - in the last couple of years WP:WSS has been slowly replacing all regional types where possible with nation-specific ones (both of these have been around since about 2005-06, which is why they also still have the deprecated -hist- style). After a bit of thought I'd agree that it makes some sense to have a single CentralAm stub, given the intertwined histories of the countries in the region - but also be aware we already have specific stubs for some specific periods of Central American history (e.g., the somewhat overlapping {{

Pre-columbian-stub}} and {{Mesoamerica-stub}} - more about one of which below...). As for the category, upmerging is probably still the best measure for the time being, since the number of stubs that use (and currently could use) the stub is fairly low. Upmerging would in no way prejudice against re-creating the category (after proposal) once it reaches the standard threshold for a category split (60 stubbed articles). Grutness...wha? 06:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm fine with upmerging, or whatever else you decide to do. I'm really not familiar with stub-sorting practice here, and just kind of created the stub off-hand, based on the South-Am version. Do whatever you think is best. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 rename, redirects kept

This template is currently at the above name, with a redirect at {{

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

Unproposed, and the chances of finding the required 60 stubs are minimal, to say the least. As to the template name, well there are times when words fail me - certainly not a subtype of some non-existent "Street-stub", as the hyphens suggest. No permcat either - the nearest would suggest that in the highly unlikely event of this being needed, {{WilliamsStreetStudios-stub}} and Cat:Williams Street Studios stubs would be the correct names. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.