Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

{{PNG-geo-stub}} → {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}}[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 rename


Though PNG-geo-stub is unambiguous, sooner or later, we're going to want a general stub for Papua New Guinea, and PNG-stub won't do due to its ambiguity - though there are no other places known as PNG, other things are. To get around the problem before it arises (which it may do pretty soon), I'd like to move PNG-geo-stub to the longer name - no opinion one way or the other about keeping the redirect, though I suspect it might be better if it went. Grutness...wha? 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those other things are likely to have a stub category of their own and certainly is no more problematic than using NI for Northern Ireland indeed I would say less problematic since {{NI-politician-stub}} could be for stub articles for the Non-Inscrits in the European parliament. Support the new template name, but indifferent as to the fate of the original. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (per nom or to at least something less cryptic). PNG isn't just a disambig, nor even a redirect, but an article on a completely different topic. (I'd also favour getting rid of NI-, NZ- and HK-, for that matter.) Alai 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm biased, but NZ is a disambiguoation page to three things relating to New Zealand and one redlinked enzyme, so i doubt there's much problem there. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing to the latter stub name. Then all geo stubs would be entered in the same format, instead of a few with abbreviations.Gittinsj 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj[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.

Video game sub-types renames[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 rename to X video game stubs, for consistency


We seem to have numerous subcats of what's now Cat:video game stubs that neglect to mention the small matter of the "video" part. In some cases that's implied, and the permcats follow the same structure, but others look rather fishy -- not all games in the 'genre' are computer games, and the permcat parent does make the CVGness explicit. I think one or two of these were renamed at CFD, but mostly they seem to have been just created that way (and are listed at /ST, whether or not they were actually proposed or "discovered").

Rename all to something making "video" (and/or "computer") explicit, hopefully in a way consistent with permcat's terminology. Alai 21:36, 10 March 2007 (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.

{{Washington-bio-stub}} / Cat:Washington people 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 upmerge


Unproposed - a subnational bio-stub, and as such contrary to normal stub-splitting practice. Bio-stubs are not created for subnational regions except in those rare cases such as politician-stubs where there is a specific connection of an individual with a region, for the reason that people move around far too much for any such stub split to be effective. Splitting is by nationality and by occupation, not by individual state. Note: there is a Washington WikiProject, but if a state-specific WP wants to keep track of articles relevant to it, a talk-page template is likely a far better solution than a stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't realize there was a stub proposal process. Bio stubs already exist for a few other US states, see Cat:American people stubs:
Cat:Florida people stubs
Cat:Iowa people stubs
Cat:Oregon people stubs
Cat:Texas people stubs
Cat:Utah people stubs
If this one should go those probably should as well... dyknowsore 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason that we are generally adverse to these state level stubs is that they have a tendency to be overused. They should be used only when the person's notability is specific to that state. OTOH people such as Mildred Bailey who are merely born there but have a notability that is not due to what she did in her home state should not use such stubs. Still, all 6 of the current Washington bio stubs do meet that standard, but unless that total can be raised to 60, this should be deleted or upmerged to {{Washington-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{Oregon-bio-stub}}. Used as part of a very active WikiProject that is in the middle of adding many articles on people important to the history of Oregon. I find it useful. Created in July 2005, it is populated with 60+ articles. Katr67 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the {{Oregon-bio-stub}} as it is used extensively. Though there is a WP:WPOR template for the talk pages, with hundreds (if not thousands) of WPOR articles it is not that useful for trying to find articles that need expanding. That's where the stub tags come in, which I would guess is the entire reason for having the stub templates (identify articles that could use attention) going off the language at WP:WSS. Not to mention sub-national stubs should be appropriate as the large countries (i.e. not the micro states of Europe) have more people in these sub-national regions that some entire countries. I believe California has about as many people as all of Canada, and I know there has to be a province in China with a bigger population than any country in Europe. So is it fair that Belguim (population 10 mil+) can have a bio stub, but California (population 33 mil+) cannot? That just does not make since when taking into account the purpose of these stubs. Aboutmovies 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{tl:Oregon-bio-stub}}. If this stub is one of the tools that keeps Katr67 as productive as she is, this is a no-brainer. AboutMovies is also a highly valued member of our WikiProject, but I don't necessarily agree with his argument here - I believe people move about more freely within the USA than within Belgium, and can understand how state level bio stubs might become unweildy on that basis. But, I want to reiterate: if this tool is deemed important by highly productive members of our community, that in itself should be a compelling reason to keep - even if it means Oregon is treated differently from other states that have only 6 such stubs. -Pete 22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why Katr67 added {{sfd-t}} to the {{Oregon-bio-stub}} template. While the type was mentioned in this discussion, it was in the context of why {{Washington-bio-stub}} should or should not be kept. The Oregon bio stub was not under any consideration for change, so I've deleted the {{sfd-t}} template from {{Oregon-bio-stub}}. This discussion is solely on whether there should be a {{Washington-bio-stub}} and since it is still severely undersized at only 8 stubs, I would say no. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks to me like dyknowsore is the one who added Oregon's to the list of stubs under consideration in the discussion above. Thanks for clarifying that the Oregon people stub is not part of this action. -Pete 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got jumpy, but I've seen things added to deletion discussions with "might as well delete this one too" that never got tagged, so no one was notifed, and then they subsequently got deleted, leaving behind baffled editors. One example I can think of is 50 or so List of bands from (U.S. state) Foo, most of which were deleted out of process. Fortunately someone went back and relisted everything properly. In the end they got deleted again, but not before editors were able to go back and put the bands in the lists into the various state music categories instead. Anyway, I wouldn't have even known about this discussion except that I tagging something with the Washington stub today, and I would have hated to see the Oregon stub go without a discussion. (As for the Washington stub, WPWA doesn't seem to be using it so they should be given a chance to populate it and if they do so, then I would vote Keep). So... since someone from WPSS put your project tag on the Oregon stub, does that mean it is "safe"? Katr67 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless someone nominates it for deletion, it should be safe. The admins who normally close out the discussions here are fairly conservative about making certain that the template or cat was tagged before it gets deleted or renamed, indeed some would say too conservative, but deletion is one of those things where being process-bound is a good thing IMO. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've typically been the SFD-closer lately, and I would say that Washington-bio-stub is the only one being taken into consideration. The others were added by someone other than the original nominator, so they should get their own separate nomination. I have removed the SFD notice on everything except Washington. Never mind, it looks like they're gone already... Also, consensus seems kind of split, so I'm leaving this open for a bit longer to get some more votes. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There haven't been any more votes either way, but there are only 10 articles in the category. I will probably upmerge this into Cat:Washington stubs later today, unless there are any other ideas. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:13, 23 March 2007 (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.

Canada <noun> stubs → Canadian <noun> 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 no consensus


For the avoidance of 'stub grammar', and to match the numerous other "Canadian X stubs" subcats of Cat:Canada stubs. Alai 06:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the permcats are all of the form <Noun> <prep> Canada, mild support since I doubt if the alternative of naming them Cat:Geography of Canada stubs etc. will be adopted anytime soon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I understand the logic of this suggestion, I'm still chary about it. I for one don't want to have to consult a list every time I want to check a country's stubs simply because it uses an odd demonym - and (particularly in the case of geo-stubs) if you're going to change Canada, you're going to need to change others, too - a lot of them. There are currently closing in rapidly on 180 nation-geo-stub types,for instance, all of them using the noun form. Though grammatically it is not ideal, it's a lot easier than having to remember I-Kiribati, Equatoguinean, Kittitian-Nevisian, or Burkinabe (to name just four). Might I suggest compromise: where the permcat is "Fooian X", rename to" Fooian X stubs"; where the permcat is "X of Foo/X in Foo", keep as "Foo X stubs". That way at least there will be some consistency with the permcats, and it will make it far easier to decide exactly what stub categories should be called. Grutness...wha? 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "a compromise", that's "the muddle of 'stub grammar' we've been moving away from". I am, to put it as mildly as I can manage, not convinced we should be primarily guided in naming stub categories to facilitate typing -geo-stub category names into a search box or URL -- you could just go via the template, and have less to type to boot, you realize? How does it even help people who don't necessarily have every permcat name memorised (or all types of permcats corresponding to any stub types they'd want to look up, at least)? Unless you can make a case that "Canadian" is an "odd demonym" in some way that using "Canada" attributively isn't "odd", I don't see the case against standardising on non-odd attributives. (I shall at this point state -- as I invariably do in the numerous iterations of this discussion -- that I am not somehow insisting on "adjectives, always adjectives, adjectives no matter now obscure" -- which next time 'round the loop we start all over on.) Please also note the number of existing "of/in Canada" permcats with "Canadian" stub types: do you propose to move them "back"? Alai 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you;re suggesting is changing to demonyms on those where we can guess the demonym, but not on those we can't, making for an even bigger muddle? Euh, count me out on that one. As for following the templates, that's fine for stub-sorting, but we're doing this to make it easier for editors, and I suspect that there are a lot of editors who don't know many of the arcane demonyms for countries they deal with articles for. My suggested compromise is a compromise, since it at least makes it obvious we are following a set standard that does parallel the permcats, rather than having to look at whether we are using demonyms or country names. This is particularly relevant since many of the permcats deliberately avoid using demonyms to help editors and because those demonyms may be inappropriate. To follow that system with a parallel system for stub categories makes a lot of sense to me. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting you stop hitting us over the head with "guessability" as the primary criterion, or failing which, refrain from recasting what I'm saying in those terms. What I want is stub category names that a) follow some normal, reasonable usage, rather than being purely the artefacts of a 'magimix the permcat' "standard". Would anyone ever suggest a permcat be located at "Canada <noun> <noun>s" (aside from following some strange original usage in that pattern)? And b) are reasonably consistent internally and horizontally within "geographical subdivision", which are going to be at least as important as a convenience to editors as working "per topic", especially for those as broad as "geography". (Though I'm skeptical that anyone very much works on the basis of 'type a category names guessed ab initio into a URL', so this is ultimately more about aesthetics than utility.) If people prefer, say, "California" to "Californian" as an attributive qualifier for non-people categories, as they apparently have, I have no difficulty with that. Equally, I don't feel the need to "follow the permcats off a cliff" come the fairly far-off (to say the least) circumstance of needing stubcats corresponding to Cat:Equatoguinean law or Cat:Burkinabé society if there's another attributive that's acceptable usage. (But if people don't know the "arcane" demonyms of the countries they're working on, they're going to be a little stuck with permcats like those, aren't they?)
The term "compromise" implies to me proposing some solution that's in some sense intermediate between the status quo and the proposal, rather than one that a) rejects the proposal entirely, and b) would imply further rollback of other category names to a pattern that only you appear to favour, and that we've been moving away from. If that's a "compromise", what's the "hard-line" position this in some way modifies? Alai 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's going on? Can I get a clearer answer? I'd like to close this out soon, and I'm not sure what the decision is. My opinion is that Canada --> Canadian is fine, but I can see how this could cause problems for other stubs. In general, I'd like to see a standard <noun> <blah> stubs pattern, as that would be the easiest to remember and would prevent strange Trinidad and Tobago-type adjective problems. Just my 2 cents... ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way this is going to be decided properly, so I'm closing this as no consensus. We need to come up with an official guideline before this can be closed one way or the other. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:42, 27 March 2007 (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.

{{Caucasia-stub}} / Cat:Caucasia-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 delete


Badly-named variants of {{Caucasus-stub}} and Cat:Caucasus stubs. Note that "Caucasia" is a redirect to Caucasus. Unneccessary duplication,and thus should be deleted. Perhaps slight modification might be made to the wording of caucasus-stub to indicate that it is often taken as being a wider area than just GE, AZ and AM. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one appears to have the backing of WikiProject Caucasia which explains the preference for the name. Their scope appears to be wider than just the trans-Caucasian countries, including at the very least the Russian republics in the North Caucasus economic region. Might be worth keeping the template as a redirect, but I agree there's no need for two categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Wikiproject is going to have a 'bespoke' scope, they'd be better off with a talk-page "Wikiproject Caucasia" template. Alai 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of category, weak keep of template as a redirect. Alai 06:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronge delete both. Duplicates of {{Caucasus-stub}} and Cat:Caucasus stubs which we don't need either given that both Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan now have both generic, -bio and -geo templates. Valentinian T / C 06:10, 16 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/March/10&oldid=1084292225"