Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6[edit]

Cat:United States hiphop musical group stubs → Cat:United States hip hop musical group 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 rename to "American hip hop group stubs"


Rename for consistency - all other stub and permcats use "hip hop" with two words. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename instead to Category:American hip hop group stubs, per Category:American hip hop groups. It is ridiculous, I think, that the convention of the parent cat has more sway than the convention of categories in the subject area.--Urthogie 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The general pointlessness of having half of the U.S. stub categories at "United States blether stubs", and the other half at "American yakkity stubs" has been debated here endlessly (and likewise, British/U.K.). Alai 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should guide consensus for stub names more than other stubs. I don't care that much, although let's just say that its pretty obvious the stub beuracracy has more effect on what the stubs are called than the actual editor of the given subject... yknow the people who actually use those categories...-Urthogie 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until such time as we cease juggling word order, dropping prepositions, etc, we're in any event going to have to make stub-specific determinations about what a category name should reasonably be. In the permcat hierarchy itself, we have a significant amount of flip-flopping between "American X" and "Y in/of the United States", so "follow the parent no matter what" isn't, and for the forseeable future can't be, a universal solution. In any event, no-one is being forced to use those categories by actually typing the offending name (unless they're tweaking the stub category hierarchy itself, or explicitly linking to it), so the only likely 'hardship' involved is looking at it. (Which is true either way, of course.) Alai 18:08, 7 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.

{{Indigenous-stub}} / Cat:Indigenous peoples 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


Unproposed. If it had been proposed, we would have pointed the proposer to the longstanding series of {{ethno-group-stub}} types which already exist and serve an indentical purpose to this stub. Delete as redundant. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously, your suggested ethnic subgrouping template is so incomplete as it doesn't even include the groups of the Americas, which only underlines how neccessary it is to develop Wikiknowledge about the topic of indigenous cultures, which my template is used for (as most of the world's indigenous or uncontacted peoples live in South America). Even if it were there I wouldn't use it, as simply saying someone is part of an 'Ethnic group' is ignorantly vague. The situation and definition of indigenous people is vastly more than that.
There is a real lacking in Wikipedia in the area of articles about indigenous cultures, which is sad because these cultures are falling into disarray and extinction as we speak, all the more easier because education about their cultures is restricted to Scientific Journals. While I understand I have violated some process which I wasn't aware of, please think about the effect this deletion will have as a tool to those interested in growing articles about indigenous peoples.Yeago 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, did you consider proposing the "missing" ethnic subgrouping for the Americas? Or did you perhaps create one specifically for the Americas? No, you duplicated an existing one. And why is it called "ethnic groups" rather than "indigenous"? For two reasons. Firstly, the term "indigenous" is far more vague (thank you for the 'compliment' of "ignorant", BTW), since it implies that all people have developed and stayed in the same place. Secondly, it becomes far narrower than the term ethnic group, as it would not allow for other non-"indigenous" peoples. Nomadic peoples could not be included in it, neither could transplanted populations. or are you suggesting that neither of these two types of people deserve to have stub categories? Since it is a virtual duplicate - albeit one with a less inclusive scope - deleting it will have no effect whatsoever on the articles you speak of, since they will still be able to be found by the same editors who have been editing them up until now. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not consider proposing the ethnic subgroup, just as you did not consider a simple rename. That would have been above and beyond the group-think of these XfD pages which is always a parroting choir of "Delete per nom". I already pleaded ignorance on this matter and yet you charge on, instead of correcting my mishap. Oh well, I'll take the bait.
Of course nomadic peoples could be included. Here again you embarass me with your wisdom. Nomadic peoples typically roam circuits, and these circuits lay within a region. Therefore... _______. I'll let you fill in the blank, but of course since you're such an expert I'm not telling you anything new. You were simply testing me with a red herring of nonsense.
Actually, I created a few of the articles in question and am the sole editor of them in some cases, so that pretty much kaputs your wonderful conclusion that they already have full traffic, doesn't it sarge? Do you think I created the special stub category for my own tomfoolery and fun? Do you think I did it for the same reasons you do what you're doing now--"Ah-ha. Look what I can do. I can delete a page. Nevermind a simple fix would complete the existing system! It should have been proposed!!! For process and principle is so much more important than good results!" No. I am a Wikipedian. I actually research things. I require advanced tools to do my job correctly. Are you here to improve the category system or aren't you? Are you going to do something about the missing ethno-stub category, or aren't you? You're the one who brought it up. You showed me the light of the ethno-stub templates. I pointed out their incompleteness. And here you sit, typing away in a thousand times the effort and time it would take than to simply rename. The innards of Wikipedia can be a really sad place, and its no wonder I don't tread here often.Yeago 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah blah. I'm done being ornery. What can I do to complete the templating system you suggested? Will a simple rename suffice? I don't think the proposal process is really neccessary here, as we all know there's really no debate in saying South America simply isn't represented in the ethno templates. I know, its not according to the process, but that's what WP:IAR is for =). Let's get it done. Yeago 02:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your logic. If the only editor using the category that has been suggested for deletion is you, and you now know what other categories there are, yes, my point about anyone who have been working on articles in the category knowing where to find them if this stub type is deleted is pretty justified. No, of course I don't think you created the stub type for your own tomfoolery or fun. I think you created it because you did not know there were existing stub categories which could take the articles. "A simple fix", as you put it, would still have required coming through here, since there is no speedy deletion criterion for the creation of a duplicate category or stub template system. If there had been, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Unfortunately, a "rename" of an existing category to a new name would still require some process because of the deletions involved (it isn't a speediable criterion). Rather than arguing this out, though, moving to actually complete the schema is far more fruitful. There probably still should be some form of proposal so that numbers can be checked to see whether full stub types with categories or simply upmerged templates are needed, but I suspect it's more likely to be a "rush job", since I don't think too much debate on it is likely - the only real problem is quibbling over whether ethnic group indigenous, or native, is the better name/scope. I've made the proposal, BTW - have a look here. Grutness...wha? 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It seems strongly preferable to split ethnic groups by geography, not by "indigenousness". Alai 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is delete the knee-jerk antitode to this? Why not simply rename it to a more specific title? Are we really debased to quibbling about a title? There is more to this than what this template happens to be called. This is a tool for people like myself to track these scant articles. What can I do to negotiate? I need this to help my researches.Yeago 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, you might try adopting a more civil tone, for one thing. Alai 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to enjoy this nosepicking, you name it. I really do not care what it is named. These are mere technicalities. See to it, courageous deletionist. I knight thee Caerwine of Nitpickydom, Destroyer of Inconsistency. God shall smile upon Great Holy Works such as you have just illustrated.Yeago 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion, Yeago - read WP:CIVIL. Also, read the naming guidelines of stub templates and categories. They may tell you some things you clearly do not know. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 8 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.

Cat:People's Republic of China road 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


Not content with the edit-war between scoping {{China-road-stub}} as the People's Republic vs. "mainland China", we now have an un-upmerged category, entirely contrary to any sentiment over at /P, and where the category's clearly much too small at present. Upmerge, and strongly urge certain parties to knock it on the head. Alai 07:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cat and upmerge the template as per Alai. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't create this out of any edit war, I made it because it pulled ~50 stubs out of china-geo stub which is too huge. What is it supposed to upmerge too? SchmuckyTheCat 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently has 34 entries in the category, which is too small. As for the the overlarge size of {{China-geo-stub}}, that's currently the subject of a proposal to further split up by region, tho I do note that the proposal for additional regional splits was made at about the same time as you did your split out of the road stubs. The only problem with that split is that there are as of yet too few stub articles about Chinese roads to warrant separating it out as a separate stub category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not usually in stub sorting discussions and not aware that 34 is too small. SchmuckyTheCat 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was implicit in my statement that we had the revert war over scope (in which you participated), and then we had the unproposed, guidelines-ignoring un-upmerger. It's supposed to upmerge to, well, the places it was before you changed it. Alai 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that category (china-geo-stub) is too large. If one is too large but this is too small to sub-out... ugh. SchmuckyTheCat 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a proposal in hand to split that up geographically, which will take care of the "too large" problem. (Look for the discussion at WP:WSS/P with the banned users and vote-stackers.) Alai 02:52, 8 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/6&oldid=1036457468"