Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April/6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 6
[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 delete cat, create PRC-company-stub to feed into Chinese company stubs
Speedy Delete Empty, unproposed, category that is without a corresponding template. I don't see any need for this category unless we did have a {{PRC-company-stub}} template and that is regardless of whether or not Category:Mainland China company stubs survives its SFD discussion of April 3. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Qualified delete. Realistically, I am unopposed if discussion meant that having PRC-company-stub was useful. Pragmatically though, my real answer is delete because then the mainland China POV pushers will use it to further their agenda that anything !=HK/MO/TW does equal "mainland" and thus this stub type would be empty, which is stupid. SchmuckyTheCat 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No. Jinmen and Mazu never belongs to Taiwan, and in modern times not considered Mainland China. They are ROC's. Please make sure you know what you are talking about.Nobody requests to create Template: PRC-company-stub. Per earlier discussions on similar matter, Category: People's Republic of China something stubs are umbrella categories to hold the Mainland and Hong Kong ones where appropriate and necessary. (see my vote below for link) - Privacy 09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per earlier decision on similar matter. (Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/4#"Mainland China" categories) This is an umbrella category to hold the Mainland and Hong Kong categories. - Privacy 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Privacy. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ChoChoPK was prompted by Privacy to offer his brief comment. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Useful and necessary category with a neutral name. Michael G. Davis 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Michael G. Davis is a suspected lackey, symphathiser or even sockpuppet of User:Instantnood, of which Privacy is also suspected to be in similar relation with.--Huaiwei 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this be deleted in favor of using {{China-company-stub}} / Category:Chinese company stubs? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've finally closed the huge discussion from March 2, so this should probably be a keep. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While {{China-company-stub}} was mentioned there, it was my impression that it was not among those actually up for consideration. (It never did have an sfd template applied to it.) With China having companies before the PRC/ROC split came into being, I can't see getting rid of {{China-company-stub}}, but I wouldn't object to adding {{PRC-company-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I assumed the list meant that they were all included. So, are you suggested a PRC-company-stub that feeds into Category:Chinese company stubs? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having such a template is meaningless. Having templates for Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland China is already exhaustive. This category just meant to be an umbrella to hold the three categories. (Macau-company-stub may, tho, have to feed into the umbrella category, given the category would probably be too small.) - Privacy 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- We don't have a {{MainlandChina-company-stub}} so we don't have a template for Mainland China. If we had a {{PRC-company-stub}} it would have enough entries to have a category of its own (this one that is under discussion), so it should. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One, companies before the establishment of the PRC are always tagged according to their locations, like hills and lakes, buildings and structures -- those relocated their whole from where the communists occupied to where remains ROC are the only exceptions. Two, Template:China-company-stub has always been used only to mainland Chinese companies, and Category:China company stubs has always been filled with mainland Chinese companies. - Privacy 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- As you've pointed out, unlike hills, lakes, buildings, and structures, relocation is possible for companies. that is the essential difference. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I assumed the list meant that they were all included. So, are you suggested a PRC-company-stub that feeds into Category:Chinese company stubs? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While {{China-company-stub}} was mentioned there, it was my impression that it was not among those actually up for consideration. (It never did have an sfd template applied to it.) With China having companies before the PRC/ROC split came into being, I can't see getting rid of {{China-company-stub}}, but I wouldn't object to adding {{PRC-company-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've finally closed the huge discussion from March 2, so this should probably be a keep. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as umbrella category for the Mainland and Hong Kong ones. Passer-by (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete, and re-creation should go through proper procedures as per requirement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. While this may appear unnecesary and beuraucratic given the end result is likely to be the same, I feel it will set a negative precedent if we openly condone the behavior of renegades who disregard wikipolicies/guidelines and think they can overide them for no better reason than their self-perceived "truths". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huaiwei (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2007
- Striked discussions entered by sockpuppets of Instantnood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 April 2007
- 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.