Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/September/17
September 17[edit]
United States film biography stubs[edit]
- 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 
Relisted at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs. — ξxplicit 02:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:United States film biography stubs to Category:American film biography stubs
- Category:United States film director stubs to Category:American film director stubs
- Category:United States film director, 1890s birth stubs to Category:American film director, 1890s birth stubs
- Category:United States film director, 1950s birth stubs to Category:American film director, 1950s birth stubs
- Category:United States film director, 1960s birth stubs to Category:American film director, 1960s birth stubs
- Nominator's rationale: These categories seem to be the only ones that use "United States" over "American", as seen in the subcategories of Category:United States film biography stubs. These should be renamed for consistency and mainly because calling these articles United States film foo stubs sounds awkward to begin with. — ξxplicit 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I see no reason why we should tackle just the film biography stub tree. There are a lot more "United States ... stubs" right now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have over 300 "United States ... stubs", but only 107 "American ... stubs. I'm not sure which is better, but unless there's a clear concensus towards the latter, I oppose these renames. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Compare the eight "Canada... stubs" to the 100+ "Canadian... stubs"; six "Scotland... stubs" to 31 "Scottish... stubs". If anything, the entire tree is a mess, so a nomination to bring it into line one way or the other is in order. I'll gather things up and relist it when I do get around to it. — ξxplicit 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.