Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/June/23

June 23

{{Bengali-Hindu-stub}} / Category:Bengali Hindu stubs

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

The following nomination has been relisted to generate more discussion. The previous discussion is in the box below. Subsequent comments should be made below the box. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seems an unnecessary split, and counter to the way Hinduism stubs is currently being split. Another deletion candidate unless any justification can be shown as to why this is a reasonable split, unlikely given that there's no equivalent permcat. At the very least, some tidying is definitely required, especially of the category. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be at all unnecessary. Hindu is not just about adhering to Hinduism. There is a social, cultural and ethnic element to it. The Bengali Hindu people have unique things about them - no less than 36 castes, innumerable sects and historic events, which are not shared by other Hindus. The same is true for other Hindu ethno-linguistic groups - the Punjabi Hindus, the Tamil Hindus and so on. In my view, they need similar sub-grouping. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems an unusual split, given the usual way that religious, social and ethnic stubs in general are split. Consider the other sub-categories of Hinduism stubs relate directly to philosophy, mythology, theology, biography, and holy places. More importantly, as a topic area it does not have a permanent category, something which should always come before a stub split, and certainly there's no indication that there are enough stubs to meet the requirement for a separate stub category. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is older, pre-relist discussion. Please make any further comments below.

Delete based on the fact that the normal way to split religion is not by ethnic groups. Waacstats (talk) 11:53, 23 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.

Plural Wisconsin/Scottish representative cats

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 } Somehow, these slipped through in pluralised forms, where stub naming requires the singular:

I'll admit the new names sound a bit strange, but strip them of their trappings, and it's a simple "Members stubs or Member stubs" question, and Member would be correct, since it's the stubs that are plural, individual articles are not about more than one person. See also my comments on the similar NY nomination below (June 8th). Grutness...wha? 12:24, 23 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.

Commerce-related renames

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 deleted/moved per nom Suggestion of using "retailing-stub" seems more appropriate, but former "retail-stub" still availabe for redirect if wished

This discussion dates back to Sep 2009. Based on the original discussion, I'm proposing two template name changes:

{{market-stub}} ==> {{retail-market-stub}}. Propose deleting {{market-stub}} after all articles moved. For reasons: see Category:Markets.
{{retail-stub}}. Propose moving current articles to new {{retail-company-stub}}. After migration of articles, propose reusing {{retail-stub}} (with changed verbiage) as a template for Category:Retailing stubs.

Dawynn (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both proposals sound sensible. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it is a bit of a mess. As the Viking says, it sounds very sensible Grutness...wha? 01:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC),[reply]

...though come to think of it, I'd make the new stub {{retailing-stub}} to save people who know the old name from still using it for companies. Grutness...wha? 11:16, 17 August 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.