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

((SexandtheCity-stub)) / Category:Sex and the City stubs[edit]

Unused after all episode articles (minus 1) were merged/redirected back to the List of episodes for lacking notability since March-December 2007, and no forseeable use in the future either. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as no longer needed. Waacstats (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above ch¹⁰ · 13:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nominator. Versus22 _talk 15:14, 8 March 2009 (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 debate was rename cat, keep template

Rename to ((Silent-Western-film-stub)) and Cat:Silent Western film stubs to match capitalization of 'Western' present in the head article, Western (genre). I notified the editor who created both the template and category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, but it seems a bit pedantic. Lugnuts (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Lugnuts, it's no more pedantic than standard stub naming conventions. Template names are not case sensitive, so proper nouns are always capitalised in stub templates. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the original be kept as a redirect/merge to the new one? I can envisage users tagging an article with the lower-case word, only for it not to work. Lugnuts (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but given the discussion below should it not be Cat:Silent Western (genre) film stubs. Waacstats (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion was based on the assumption that "Silent Western" is sufficiently unambiguous. However, now that you bring it up, I could see "Silent Western film stubs" being (mis)interpreted as "stubs about silent films produced in the Western World". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (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 debate was rename cats, keep templates as is

Consensus was attained in two separate CFD discussions (5 Feb 2009 and 3 Mar 2009) to replace ambiguous uses of 'Western' in category names with 'Western (genre)'. So rename to Cat:Western (genre) novel stubs and Cat:Western (genre) film stubs, respectively. I notified the creator of the novel stubs category; the creator of the film stubs category is inactive. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am not sure if it is appropriate or necessary to rename the stub templates themselves—that is, from ((Western-novel-stub)) to ((Western-genre-novel-stub)) and from ((Western-film-stub)) to ((Western-genre-film-stub))—so I have not included them in this nomination at this time. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the categories. Not really necessary to change the templates IMO. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 16 March 2009 (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 debate was rename

Rename

Category:Grisons geography stubs to Category:Graubünden geography stubs

Rename

((Grisons-geo-stub)) to ((Graubünden-geo-stub)), leaving a redirect behind

The category Category:Grisons was recently renamed Category:Graubünden in conformity with the main article, which is at Graubünden. These should be renamed accordingly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support all, might be an idea to have a redirect at ((Graubunden-geo-stub)) aswell. Waacstats (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is harder to write Graubünden than Grisons. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but unless you can talk the place into changing its name, that's hardly a valid reason for having Grisons as the main name here. You'll still be able to use a redirect if one's left at ((Grisons-geo-stub)) - it's just that the template and category will conform to the official name. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Support. The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all, no reason to have a stub out of line with its topic. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (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 debate was delete

Incorrectly named template, we already have ((Theology-stub)). Waacstats (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Misnamed, redundant, duplicate. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grutness and nom. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:10, 20 March 2009 (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 debate was keep and upmerge. Mairi (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feeds into a non stub category. We don't normally split by universities and when we do we don't usually split bios by which university the person went to. Waacstats (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:We have similar discussion on deletion of a university related template over here. Oldag07 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stub templates shouldn't be that specific. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and upmerge into Category:Texas university stubs as per Template:TexasTech-stub. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 1 July 2009 (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.