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, but keep current names as redirects

• {{Berlin-U-Bahn-stub}} → {{Berlin-UBahn-stub}}
• {{Frankfurt-U-Bahn-stub}} → {{Frankfurt-UBahn-stub}}
• {{Hamburg-U-Bahn-stub}} → {{Hamburg-UBahn-stub}}
• {{Munich-U-Bahn-stub}} → {{Munich-UBahn-stub}}
• {{Nuremberg-U-Bahn-stub}} → {{Nuremberg-UBahn-stub}}

Rename and redirect templates: The stub types are not some kind of subtype of {{Bahn-stub}} and usually we drop the hyphens in names. Severo^TC 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Counter-intuitive. Agathoclea (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Still think it is counter-intuitive to anybody not involved in stub sorting as it just looks wrong. As far as Munich is concerned, there will be hardly any new stubs before 2014 (and then I dare them to get more than one station on that 1.3km extension) and only one in the last 3 years similarly there will be managable influx overall so I doubt stub-sorters will ever be bothered. But is is your baby really :-). Agathoclea (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  :) It's basically more to keep "all the ducks lined up" so that if any new templates are made for other U-bahns and S-bahns we don't have some at one name an some at another. Keeping to the usual naming conventions makes it less likely there'll be a mess! Grutness...wha? 07:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per stub naming conventions. These are not subtypes of bahn-stub, which the current template name suggests (there is no such template). As such, it is the current names which are counterintuitive to anyone involved in sorting stubs (i.e., the people who use these templates). Grutness...wha? 10:08, 13 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.

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the road-stub template nominated below (Aug 11), Perth is a dab page, and permcats for the city are at Category:Perth, Western Australia. As such, the following should be renamed, with the current name deleted:

• {{Perth-stub}} → {{PerthAU-stub}}
• {{Perth-geo-stub}} → {{PerthAU-geo-stub}}
• Category:Perth geography stubs → Category:Perth, Western Australia geography stubs

The main stub category is already at Category:Perth, Western Australia stubs Grutness...wha? 10:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support move, as you say Perth is a disambig page, all categories are disambiguated so stubs should be also. Severo^TC 15:33, 14 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.

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 upmerge, with no prejudice against re-creation if and when the number of stubs increases to acceptable levels

Extremely premature. Category:Sport in South Sudan only contains 16 articles, so it seems unlikely there are the threshold-meeting 60 existing stubs. Upmerge both of the articles in this category (as was originally intended when the templates were created - looks like someone jumped the gun without proposing the category). Grutness...wha? 13:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge for now with no prejudice on recreation if/when 60 article theshold is met. Severo^TC 15:30, 14 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.