This template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
I've only just found out about the TfD for Nelson-geo-stub. Unfortunately, as an unofficial "head sorter" of New Zealand geography stubs, I can report that simply making it into a redirect is (a) causing havoc in trying to keep track of what has and hasn't been assigned a generic NZ-geo-stub (which should be only items which refer to New Zealand geography as a whole) and what has actually been sorted as being in Nelson, (b) goes against standard stub practice, and (c) makes it difficult to tell a what point the stub template will have enough articles for its own category.
Usual practice in stub sorting is to simply re-point templates to parent categories if a category needs to be upmerged - this has been standard practice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting for over a decade now. Unfortunately, I see that WP:WPSS was not informed of the proposed deletion (which, again, is standard practice), and as such no members of the project knew to comment on the TfD. Note that the suggestions from the stub sorters who were involved in the CfD debate were for the template to "be moved up into Category:New Zealand geography stubs", not for it to become a redirect. No link was made at TfD, either, to the previous SfD debate related to the template. If necessary, I shall re-open the process as a request for undeletion, but hopefully common sense will prevail and this template will be treated in the same way as the hundreds of other upmerged stub templates, rather than being uniquely deleted. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
