Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

In parallel to the discussions on /P about the merits of some such stub, one's been created. Current scope is apparently ice hockey arenas, which is misleadingly narrow. Should be either renamed, or rescoped, I'd think. Alai 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i thought the discussion decided that it wasnt a good idea to have a seperate arena-stub. id redirect to stadium-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (unsigned nomination)[reply]

I was as well. Delete this redundant stub. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the creator and the apparent intent, I doubt there's any relationship between the two, hence "in parallel". Alai 06:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever it is, I still don't think it's particularly useful. Perhaps redirecting to stadium-stub until that discussion's reached some form of concluson would make sense? Grutness...wha? 07:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, please. If it's arenas in general, it's parallel and pretty pointless. If it's just ice hockey arenas, the category gets really difficult to use in the case of multi-use arenas. --fuzzy510 02:39, 12 May 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

I can't recall seeing a proposal for this one. A bit oddly formed and only used on 12 articles. Viable? Valentinian ^(talk) 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth sorting through {{Asia-myth-stub}}, since that's where I dumped the Persian myths later used in Zoroastrianism during the {{myth-stub}} split. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:44, 9 June 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

I discovered this redirect to {{US-bio-stub}} whilst sorting through that category. Was used on 9 stubs, about half being Czech-Americans which makes some sense since {{Czech-bio-stub}} is an exception to our usual stub template naming rules of using country name rather than country adjective. Have either sent them all to a subtype or {{US-bio-stub}}. No strong opinion on whether to keep as a redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having rediscovered this, I'm going to send it to SFD for an authoritative decision as to whether it should be kept or not. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:53, 3 December 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Created 27 June. Used on 7 articles. Youth wings are normally stubbed the same way as their mother parties, so I don't see its use. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:35, 4 July 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Too small and badly named. The work of WikiProject Oklahoma. Anyway, the template should be renamed. OU also means - e.g. Odense University and there's probably also an Oregon Uni etc. somewhere. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that I am of the minority opinion that USC is the University of South Carolina, university stubs that go by just the initials should be verbotten. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Nur ein 'T', bitte. Aber Sie haben ganz recht. (one T is enough, and I agree completely.)  :) Valentinian ^(talk) 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As a graduate of OU (that is, Otago University), I should perhaps point out that the world's most famous OU is almost certainly Oxford University. And I agree with Caerwine... what USC stub??? And let's not even mention the "-reated"... SFD, anyone? Grutness...wha? 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To SFD. We should be aiming to re-split these by (entire) state, if necessary (or if people insist), not by individual institution. Alai 01:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second an SFD. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:21, 25 June 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

41 articles about weird mythological creatures. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont we have something like {{legendary-creature-stub}} for them? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:02, 3 July 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Added to the stub type list today. I've pulled it from there until it's discussed... is there really any need for this one? Grutness...wha? 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a fair number of these, which were mainly being given model-stub as the closest available one. IIRC, I've proposed such a stub before, but had it rejected mainly because of lack of a suitable name. The stubs are there, altho now that we've started doing splits of model-stub on a per country basis, this second axis might prove troublesome. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:44, 19 July 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Strangely enough 24 nuggets with this stub type, whien I would have thought it had 6, 9, or at most 20. Might be viable, but I doubt it, tho there are more than 60 articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:McDonald's (not including ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:McDonald's High School All-Americans which I doubt would have articles for which this stub would be appropriate. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:51, 23 July 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Created 13 August without a proposal. The cat probably should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Lithuanian music stubs. It currently only has 9 articles. --Bruce1ee 08:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy rename Monni 10:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. This one is not only way too small, but it completely breaks through the category system. {{Music-stub}} has no country-specific children at all, these articles are sorted by genre. Brucelee, I believe you were thinking about the templates for musical bands. In that case, it should have been {{Lithuania-band-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Lithuanian musical group stubs, but this template was used on less than 10 articles, two of them were clearly not stubs, I'll say three more probably aren't either, and this template is used on articles not only articles on bands but also on composers. On the positive side, I like the image of Čiurlionis, but it is little comfort, and I find it somewhat confusing seing it on articles about rock music. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have {{china-music-stub}} so your point is kinda on thin ice... Monni 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that {{china-music-stub}} was never proposed and discussed. But I think {{Lithuania-music-stub}} should be deleted as it is hopelessly under populated. Valentinian, I was alerted to this one because its parent stub cat is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Musical group stubs, which is not correct as it also contains musicians and composers. --Bruce1ee 08:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was discussed about but not proposed. If no-one objects, it means there is a certain consensus. Consensus is one of the main pillars in Wikipedia. Also fixing (or reparenting) is better choice than deleting. Not to mention this and {{china-music-stub}} could be precedents for combining bands and musicians when there isn't enough to justify two stubs for them. From another point of view, this style of category is parent category for bands and musicians. Monni 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not mind it being deleted. Renata 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like we have enough of an assortment of views here that SFR/SFD would be appropriate. Even the rename could be quibbled with, as the permcat use a mixture of "Music of Noun" and "Adjectival music", and some would insist that the latter not be in the form "Adjective music stubs". But mainly, not much point in renaming if it's to be deleted. Alai 16:48, 22 August 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Indian classical music stub template and category created 5 August without a proposal. Currently has 16 stub articles. --Bruce1ee 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and a lousy name! at the very least it needs a hiphen. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 11:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe even an hyphen! This should probably go to SFD, if for nothing else other than a rename. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete too small, missing hyphen. Monni 20:42, 11 August 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

I'm sure this is viable, and fairly sensibly scoped, but never proposed as far as I'm aware, not in the "urgent" category, and appearing "out of the blue" on WP:WSS/T, which gives every appearance of taking WSS for granted to new heights (though doubtless not intended as such). Alai 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just came here for this exact same stub type. The parent isn't oversized, but it's certainly not tiny, either. I'd say that the category should potentially be renamed to biography stubs instead of people stubs, but otherwise I think we should keep it. Even if we delete it to not have WSS taken for granted, we'll probably end up creating fairly soon down the line.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzy510 (talk • contribs)
• I had often wondered why there was a {{wrestling-bio-stub}}, but no {{wrestling-stub}} and a {{prowrestling-stub}}, but no {{prowrestling-bio-stub}}. I recommend we keep it and rename the cat to whatever biography/biographical/people naming convention is currently used. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:15, 25 August 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

This has been newly created without any discussion - and since internet-stub has fewer than 200 articles, it's hardly a necessary split. The category's a redlink, too. The same person who made this has been making a raft of poorly named redirects - have a look at the load here, which include such nonsense as redirecting "British-X" to "England-X". Looks like a mass SFD may be in order! Grutness...wha? 23:21, 21 September 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

13 stubs between them, evidently per the tradition of "we're a wikiproject, why would we ever need to propose a stub type or follow the size guidelines?", Alai 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if the NI geography stubs were to be split, it wouldn't be this way - it would be into the six counties, as with the other constituent parts of both the UK and the RoI. Which is another way of saying that this should be SFD'd, and preferably ASAP. Grutness...wha? 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the constituent parts would be the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Districts of Northern Ireland, of which Belfast is one. There's a couple of schemes for possible "lumping", but I don't think any correspond to the counties-as-was. Alai 07:57, 7 September 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

This one has existed for almost half a year without anyone noticing. It is used on a mere 25 articles and - in case you haven't guessed it already - FSU means "Former Soviet Union". My first count said that three of these articles relate to the metro in Minsk (Belarus) and the rest to the metro in Moscow. I think this one was a bad idea. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Badly named, badly scoped (we don't split on the former Soviet Union), badly ordered (we'd split Euro- first), and badly prioritized (the parent is not oversized, at less than 500 articles). Off to SFD with it. --CComMack (t•c) 10:58, 4 September 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

• {{Ossetia-stub}}
• {{Ossetia-geo-stub}}
• {{Ossetia-bio-stub}}
• {{Ossetia-politician-stub}}

SFD? Conscious 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seems to have been created by a one man WikiProject (and the participant is actually a member here. Unfortunately, he didn't propose the templates first.) Everything looks very undersized at the moment. My hunch would say that the last two should go to SFD. Possibly the last three. The Alai solution is of course also a possibility, but in the case of the -politician I wouldn't know what to upmerge it to. Georgia has no template of its own, neither does the Caucasus. I've been hoping that the Caucasus nations would simply get its own national templates rather than going over a {{Caucasus-politician-stub}}. But I'm open to suggestions. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The North Ossetia is a part of Russia, the South Ossetia is (at least de jure) a part of Georgia. So the geo-, bio-, and politician- templates are hardly acceptable. Conscious 07:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not a good idea to have this split for geo- bio- or politician-, since it crosses accepted national boundaries. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 19 September 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Uhhhhhh...I don't think so. Aelfthrytha 11:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite delete--Thomas.macmillan 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shalom to this one. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:41, 9 October 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Not proposed that I recall, five stubs, renamed by CFD (tsk-tsk), hence the mysterious-looking history. Alai 04:22, 16 October 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Since Oct 12. Fourteen entrants. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:23, 16 October 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Used for the Sci Fi Channel (United States). 52 articles. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the world's best name, since it sounds like it could be for American science fiction. If we decide to keep it, I'd suggest it gets moved to something a bit clearer (SciFiChannelUS-stub being the obvious). other than that, it seems plausible, though we've had arguments about individual channel stubs in the past. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 3 November 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

We may have approved this along with the other Aussie politician stub cats; the template was created in October. Was this supposed to be upmerged or have its own cat? Pegship 12:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is already here, see above. MER-C 13:04, 7 November 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Created a few days ago. I don't remember a proposal and I'm not sure this is a good idea. If this one is kept, the category needs reformatting. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was never proposed. I don't like it very much either - what would go in here which wouldn't go better under other stub types? This may be SFD fodder. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts as well. The lobbying category is pretty empty and some of these persons are also (former) politicians. Using a -politician-stub seems better to me. If the main topic is about somebody taking a bribe, then crime-bio-stub seems a better choice. We also have poli-stub hanging around.

I'm not sure either about the selection criteria used creating this list. In my country lobbying in the U.S. sense of the word is strongly disapproved of, and it is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when speaking about the Confederation of Danish Industries. Their primary function is to negotiate wages each year. Their "lobbying" could better be described as whining once or twice every year stating that all political parties are completely inadequate in solving anything important, so they are hardly a parallel to Mr. Butts. (TV-2 (band): Gather round and let's complain. That's what we do best ...) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:59, 8 November 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

2 articles; < 60 in perm parent. Seems a tad narrow. Alai 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, too - these are both topography stubs, and that category is hardly overpopulated. SFD beckons... Grutness...wha? 11:54, 9 November 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Previously deleted, recreation. Alai 09:04, 9 November 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

• This stub tag and category have been deleted once in the past, but is now used by nearly 70 articles, and is associated with a WikiProject. I still wonder, however, whether it is appropriate given {{cell-biology-stub}}. And the template's got an abhorrently long name with Too Many Capital Letters! --Stemonitis 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I notified the WikiProject and I'm going to put these up for SFD. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:45, 6 December 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

11 different stub templates relating to ghost towns, all violating the naming guidelines in various ways. The nine associated categories follow the naming guidelines at least for the most part. ({{Ghost town-bio stub}} feeds into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ghost town stubs and {{Asian-ghost town stub}} and {{African ghost town stub}} both feed into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African ghost town stubs.) Only 7 actual stubs, all tagged with {{American-ghost town stub}}. I'm leaving a note on the associated proto-WikiProject. I intend to give them a week to find some more stubs, before sending the whole kit and caboodle to SFD for deletion of most of these, and at the very least, and renaming of the root stub to follow the naming guidelines, presumably to {{ghosttown-stub}} or {{ghosttown-geo-stub}}, assuming they can get it up to at least a minimal size. There are plenty of abandoned towns, so the possibility of them doing so seems reasonable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If even one is needed (which seems ridiculously unlikely IMHO), it should be marked with a US- in front of it, given that ghost towns exist in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a host of other places. Seems very highly unlikely that any of them are worthwhile, though. Grutness...wha? 20:44, 7 December 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

More TV nonsense. How do we keep finding these things? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:41, 10 December 2006 (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 discovery 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 send to WP:CFD

Links to "Category:Cebu-related stubs"" (gah), which doesn't exist. The only item marked was a geo-stub, now marked with philippines-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFD sounds appropriate. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:55, 27 December 2006 (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.