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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

Cat:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs[edit]

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/rescope per Grutness


Moved from CFD - Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs to Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815) stubs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this simply be at Cat:Great French War stubs, to follow the permcat? Alai (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a little confused. There seems to be more than one relevant permcat - there's also Cat:Napoleonic Wars, and the text in the category suggests that Cat:French Revolutionary Wars would also apply. Great French War seems to imply that it's the more all-encompassing term, though. This might also mean renaming the template, of course (or creating other upmerged templates, if you prefer), but at least it would get around the hyphen problem. Support rename/rescope to Cat:Great French War stubs, and moving the current template to {{GreatFrenchWar-stub}} (keeping the current template name as a redirect). Grutness...wha? 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The intent seems clearly to be the wider scope, from the text on the category, and indeed the dates (that are causing the initial trouble) in the present category name. Upmerged templates and/or redirects do seem like a good idea, since the broader term is somewhat less familiar. Alai (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2008 (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.

September 4[edit]

Cat:Rally racing stubs → Cat:Rallying stubs[edit]

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


In line with comments in the discussion process at WP:WSS/P for a Cat:Rallying biography stubs, Cat:Rallying stubs seems a more sensible name (especially since Cat:Rallying now exists), as it covers a slightly wider scope. Rename. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 4 September 2008 (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.

September 6[edit]

{{Superfund-stub}} (redlinked)[edit]

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; not linked to any articles


Unproposed, and hardly needed - there is no parent permcat Cat:Superfund, and the one article which used this template was more-effectively covered by other stub types. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a stub type that has limited to no use within Wikipedia. Delete. Jhfireboy Talk 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this stub type because there are hundreds of Superfund sites, most of which don't have Wikipedia articles but which could easily support them. I wasn't aware that it was necessary to get advance permission to create stub types, and it seems to violate the spirit of WP:BURO to require this. *** Crotalus *** 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there are 60+ existing stub articles, per guidelines. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. If a flood of these is imminent, it would perhaps be useful to have a discussion on the most useful way to scope a suitable stub type. Alai (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (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.

September 8[edit]

Cat:Sailboat racing biography stubs / {{Sailboatracing-bio-stub}}[edit]

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 as yachtracing-bio-stub, keep current template name as redirect


Following discussion at WSS/P I propose renaming these in line with the article. Sailboat racing is a redirect to Yacht racing. Also the newly proposed categories /templates to follow this new format. Waacstats (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with caveat - I take it you've also taken the equivalent perncat to CFD? If so, we should wait to see what happens there (if not, you should probably do so). Grutness...wha? 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knew I would forget something. Waacstats (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
permcat and it's subcats now listed on cfd. Waacstats (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CFD has now closed as rename so can this be renamed as well. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2008 (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.

September 12[edit]

Cat:Victoria geography stubs to Cat:Victoria (Australia) geography stubs[edit]

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


Cat:Victoria rail stubs to Cat:Victoria (Australia) rail stubs[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.

Template:Doug-episode-stub and Cat:Doug episode stubs[edit]

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)[reply]
Template
Template:Doug-episode-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly speediably since it doesn't seem to have been used. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Or perhaps deleted? There was apparently something of a TV episode purge at some point. Alai (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reasonable housecleaning measure. ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (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.

{{Stub-rhetoric}}[edit]

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)[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.

September 13[edit]

{{Bihar-struct-stub}}[edit]

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
Unproposed and incorrectly formed (it feeds only into a permcat), and with simply no need to be currently made. India-struct-stub as a whole is used on fewer than 400 articles, and if there were splitting out of states, there would be several candidates for higher up the list than Bihar, in terms of numbers of articles. Cat:Buildings and structures in Bihar has only some 40 articles all up, so the chances of this currently getting close to threshold are virtually nil. Currently used on two articles. Delete, or failing that upmerge - properly - to Cat:Indian building and structure stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one is semi-sensible; perhaps even verging on the forward-looking! Fix and upmerge. Alai (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2008 (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.


{{Patna-stub}}[edit]

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
Created unproposed by the same editor as the above, and equally poorly formed - this is a stub for a city in Bihar. Or for a district in Bihar - the category Cat:Patna, into which this erroneously places stubs, is unclear on exactly which it's intended for. Given that we haven't even got a {{Bihar-stub}} this seems very premature, to say the least. Currently unused - there does seem to be a nascent WP:Bihar, though, so upmerge, rename, and change scope up to a {{Bihar-stub}}, and don't keep the current type as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as unused, and start over from scratch as and when. Alai (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2008 (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.

September 18[edit]

Cat:Italian volleyball biography stubs[edit]

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 keep per wpss/p discussion


After my spelling problems on proposals I discovered I had an even bigger problem, the Italians only had 40 odd articles and It should have been Japanese category that got created. Can someone please delete this undersized category. does speedy request by only editor work here? Waacstats (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but it's worth having a hunt around for the other 20 first. I've added a couple of other articles to the category, and can probably find a few more... Grutness...wha? 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were quite a few tiny unstubbed articles in Cat:Italian volleyball players - I've got the stub cat up to 57 articles now, which is probably close enough to 60 to keep it. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, hopefully I am over my holiday and back to normal. Waacstats (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Sounds like you need a holiday to recover from the holiday! :) Grutness...wha? 00:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday did include an icosathlon so I shouldn't be surprised. Waacstats (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! And you call that a holiday??? Grutness...wha? 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That explains much of Waacs' expertise in so many sport categories...Keep both the category and Waacstats! Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:15, 22 September 2008 (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.

September 20[edit]

{{Scotland-literature-stub}} (redlinked)[edit]

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


Unproposed... Initially I thought this was a reasonable stub, but there are several things that need doing to it if (and it's a fairly big if) it's to be kept. The first problem is the name. Literature stubs all use the form lit-stub, never literature-stub. Second, there's the scope and size. This might be fine as an upmerged form to UK-lit-stub, but at the moment there isn't a Cat:United Kingdom literature stubs - nor even a {{UK-lit-stub}}, since there's not a large enough number of lit-stubs that these need splitting out from it. For the most part literature is split by type, rather than by country of origin (though there are some such stub types for literature from countries where English is not a primary language). Though Scotland does hbave a proud literary heritage, I just don't see the need for this stub type at the moment - it should preferably be deleted, or failing that thoroughly rescoped and renamed for British literature as a whole. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 20 September 2008 (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.

September 21[edit]

Cat:West Asian football biography stubs - Cat:Middle Eastern football biography stubs[edit]

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 keep WA, del ME


We had a discussion back on 23 June as to what to do with the first of these (outcome - add explanatary note) - We now have the former as a subcat to the latter and some Cat:foo football biography stubs as subcats to both others to just the latter the same with templates. I have no preference to which one we keep the former fits better with what we have done with other footy cats, while the latter fits better with what we do everywhere else. delete either category (but not both).Waacstats (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what do we do with Australia's equivalent? Do we use FIFA's classification (Asia), or the usual UN designation (Oceania)? That might give us a clue which to use on the nominated categories. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The haphazard organization of these two cats is due to my trying to make sense of who was a member of which league...please deal with it as you see fit! <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep the West Asian one, and delete the MidEast(TM) one. The governing body is the West Asian Football Federation, and I'd personally favour using the UN geoscheme whenever possible, as otherwise these regional designations tend to be very sketchily or ambiguously defined. Alai (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2008 (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.

September 22[edit]

{{Humor-book-stub}} (upmerged)[edit]

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 and upmerge as {{comedy-book-stub}} - delete current name

Unproposed, misnamed, and unused - also, judging by the number of unsubcategorised articles in Cat:Book stubs, unnecessary. There is no such permcat as Cat:Humor books (or Cat:Humour books, for that matter - the transatlantic difference being another potential problem with this name). There is Cat:Comedy books - to which Cat:Humor books redirects - indicating that a rename to {{Comedy-book-stub}} would make some sense, but - as pointed out - the number of un-subcatted book stubs is very low. Either rename and delete the current name or delete entirely. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I didn't create this item, I can see its usefulness. There are a fair number of Cat:Non-fiction book stubs which are comedy books, so they hang around taking up space in the NF cat. Can we upmerge it for now and see how it goes, under any name you like? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my first preference is for upmerging, but with the name comedy-book-stub, given the permcat and US vs International English problem. I'd prefer not to keep the current name as a redirect, though. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 22 September 2008 (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.

September 23[edit]

{{Euthenasia-stub}} (sic)[edit]

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


Unproposed, unlikely to find much use if any, and misspelled to boot. Even at {{Euthanasia-stub}} it would be unlikely to get enough use to warrant a stub type. Oh, and there's no category link of any kind. Delete Grutness...wha? 00:19, 23 September 2008 (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.

Cat:United Kingdom film actor stubs[edit]

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 keep as is


Moved from WP:CFD. Why don't people read the instructions? Grutness...wha? 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom film actor stubs to Category:British film actor stubs Per convention. I would have moved it myself, only I no longer seem to be able to move categories - has this privilege been removed from ordinary editors? Setanta747 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at current name. It does meet the naming conventions of stub categories - most UK people stub types use "United Kingdom", though it's far from uniform (something should be done about this, really). Grutness...wha? 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. This is getting so far away from the point that it is not funny. There are clearly points we are not going to agree on here, and I'm not prepared to keep wasting pixels trying to convince you that simply reading the instructions would have been the best move, and that blaming me for a misperceived attitude rather than simply acknowledging the error and moving on is not going to help anyone. For any perceived slight, apologies - but believe me there was none there. All I did was point out your error and the location of the instructions. Can we get back to the point in hand, please? Grutness...wha? 00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no need to convince me with regard to reading anything - I was already quite aware of the advantage of this. Your attitude assumes that humans are not prone to mistakes and oversights. Your comment appeared presumptuous and patronising.
The point had been that the category does not follow the established convention of other categories. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it does follow the naming conventions for stub categories - something you seem unable to grasp, despite it having been pointed out to you now on numerous occasions. Rather than attempting to grasp this, you appear far more concerned with firstly blaming me for pointing your errors out and now suggesting that my simple comment was "presumptuous and patronising", a suggestion which i find offensive. Of course you are prone to error, as are we all. But anyone with any sense would recognise that they had made an error, apologise, then move on, knowing not to do so again. Instead of that, you simply claimed, quote: "As I always do, I will continue, when I perform a task, to check that I am doing it right the first time", something which was clearly not the case on this occasion. I'm not sure why you are in so much denial over your failure to follow the instructions this time, or why you are clearly also in so much denial over your attacks on me for this, but clearly nothing more can be gained from attempting to debate with you on this, since you apparently lack the ability to understand any of this. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to "grasp" what you have said just fine, thank you. Now you have adopted a somewhat angry tone and I would suggest you calm down before thinking about replying to this again. I made an observation with regard to a comment you had made. If you find my observation to be offensive, perhaps you should look at why I might have been offended by your initial comment in the first place. It is not my job to administrate this encyclopaedia - it is your job. You are an administrator. As such, you are the person on which the onus falls to correct mistakes made by the masses - the editors.
I actually did check that I had done it right the first time - you are incorrect when you assert that it "was clearly not the case on this occasion". I have not denied that I have "followed the instructions". I get the feeling that you're reading responses from somebody else, but certainly not from myself.
I have not made any attacks on you at all. I simply pointed out that your rhetorical question, "Why don't people read the instructions?" was patronising. Now an example of an attack, on the other hand, is perhaps when someone suggests that someone else lacks an ability. In fact, this is what you have been doing constantly, blaming me for lacking the ability to understand, to read instruction, to follow instruction... As an admin, it is partly your job to clean up mistakes that editors make. As they say in the US: suck it up. But do not patronise me. I am quite well aware of my failings and my errors, and I don't need patronising from the likes of yourself. Please re-consider your attitude and stop defending the indefensible. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never patronised you - all I have done is try to find out why you did not follow clear instructions. Every time I have, you have insisted that you did, yet the very thing you see when you open up WP:CFD is big clear instructions at the top of the page saying: "Discussion of stub categories is at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion." If this is not clear enough, then it will need to be altered to make it clearer. If this is patronising, I'm sorry - it is not intended to be, it is simply trying to get information from you, information that you have proved so far unwilling to tell me. Rather than helping by telling me why you failed to read this, you continually insist on tellling me that i shouldn't be concerned as to why you got it wrong, (not that you did, in your view), but should simply clear up your mistake (not that you made one, in your view), and that from trying to find out why the mistake was made in the first place I am being "patronising", "presumptuous", "looking for excuses", and adopting "an angry tone". It may be difficult to get tones and attitudes across in print, but it is clearly possible for you to thoroughly misinterpret them. Also, when it is pointed out to you that permanent categories and stub categories use different naming conventions, you insist that this category still need renaming since it doesn't follow the (permanent) category naming conventions - conventions which don;'t apply to stub categories as they use a different naming scheme. Now, to top it all off you suggest I "suck it up" - thank you, but that is far beyond the bounds of what is appropriate here - I have no intention of "sucking it up" for you or for anyone else. Please take your obscene suggestions elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: If one uses the permanent category naming convention, there is still room for the use of "United Kingdom" in this context, per How to name a nationality: "Some states do not possess unambiguous (i.e. Democratic Republic of the Congo) or universally-applicable (i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina) adjectives. In these circumstances, users should use the format "Country foo", where Country is the unamended name of the country." Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why there should be any difference, to be honest. Why should this category be treated any differently. Besides which, United Kingdom is a noun and not an adjective or a nationality. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think this usage is appropriate, you should address that issue at the naming convention page. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:49, 1 October 2008 (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.

September 24[edit]

Cat:Fatboy Slim stubs[edit]

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


Now here's a really weird one. There's no category - these are all manually added to the category (which has existed for over year but was, of course, unproposed). It contains 40 stubs and the comments at the top of the category make it clear it's intended to be part of an assessment scheme - one without an assessment template. The category is also a child of Cat:British musician stubs, even though not one of the articles is about a musician. A mess all round, really, and not close to threshold. Delete. I might have !voted upmerge if there was anything to upmerge, but with no template... Grutness...wha? 06:23, 23 September 2008 (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.

September 26[edit]

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

{{Netop A/S-stub}}[edit]

Unproposed, and goes against stub naming conventions in a couple of ways (space, oblique). No category of any kind. And - the kicker - not just no permcat Cat:Netop A/S, but a key article Netop A/S that is borderline speediable for no context. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not needed. Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/September&oldid=242119941"