Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
December 4
[edit]{{Hinduismstub}}
[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 redirect, resulting from a move. Alai 23:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Her Pegship 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at first I wondered what was going on but...per nom. — Seadog 04:11, 8 December 2006 (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 debate was upmerge
Despite the {{WPSS-cat}} banner on top, this was created unproposed from an upmerged template, and should have stayed upmerged: the template is only on 14 articles. Category:Oregon building and structure stubs is also undersized and technically unproposed, but upmerging the sports venues will put it at 53, and there are airports that can be double-tagged to bring that number up some. Upmerge and delete. --CComMack (t–c) 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I did anything incorrectly, I merely noticed that someone had created the stub type (ostensibly to differentiate it from the similar Western States sports venue stub) and attempted to bring the thing into line with the other Oregon stubs. I see no problem with merging and deleting. I'll go remove the banner. Katr67 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now failry standard practice to create upmerged stub templates with no individual categories when there is a natural stub parent and size would be a concern. Some of us add a commented note in the template, but it seems that not everyone does. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Do you think you could look over the other Oregon stubs and see if any of the rest of these need to upmerged/unscrewed up? I had created the buildings and structures and schools stub categories a while ago, seeing that there were other individual states within the Western states cats. Sorry I didn't realize size was an issue. What's the guideline? I wish I had seen a note... Katr67 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sorry for not having a commented note; I didn't know that was the current practice, but it makes a lot of sense. Grutness, is there an example of a template containing such a note that you could point me to for future reference? —CComMack (t–c) 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Do you think you could look over the other Oregon stubs and see if any of the rest of these need to upmerged/unscrewed up? I had created the buildings and structures and schools stub categories a while ago, seeing that there were other individual states within the Western states cats. Sorry I didn't realize size was an issue. What's the guideline? I wish I had seen a note... Katr67 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now failry standard practice to create upmerged stub templates with no individual categories when there is a natural stub parent and size would be a concern. Some of us add a commented note in the template, but it seems that not everyone does. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Usual size guidelines are 60 current stubs, but reduced to 30-40 if there's an active wikiproject directly relating to the stub type. It's explained at WP:STUB, and also at the top of the Stubsorting WikiProject's proposal page (where all new categories should be proposed prior to creation anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Katr67 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the other stubs, given CComMac's comments above about upmerging the sports venues into struct-stub, the only stub that's likely to be a problem is Oregon-bio-stub. We don't generally stub people by subnational region since people tend to move around a lot. The exception is politicians, who are usually automatically associated with one place. everything else looks pretty much OK, though the stub category tree is a bit askew in places (all of these stub categories should have Category:Oregon stubs for a parent, to start with). Grutness...wha? 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking it out. I'll try to get around to fixing up the mess today. And as long as I've got your attention, is there any way to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon *out* of the stub categories without taking the examples off the project page? Or is there a reason it should be there? Katr67 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The simplest way to remove it is to "subst" the template, and then remove the category. (Of course, that means you then have a copy of the template code, not a live transclusion, but probably close enough for most purposes.) WSS strongly prefers that the template appears in the category, but I don't think much minds either way about project-space inclusions. Alai 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking it out. I'll try to get around to fixing up the mess today. And as long as I've got your attention, is there any way to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon *out* of the stub categories without taking the examples off the project page? Or is there a reason it should be there? Katr67 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Katr67 20:51, 6 December 2006 (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.
"Mainland China" categories
[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 PRC becomes umbrella cat for Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau
- Category:Mainland China geography stubs → Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs -- upmerge and upscope
- Category:Mainland China building and structure stubs → Category:People's Republic of China building and structure stubs -- rename and rescope
My reading of this discussion is that there's very little basis, and certainly no consensus for the current structure, which is in any event both internally inconsistent (in one case having a PRC umbrella, and the other keeping the "Mainland" and the SARs entirely separate), and with the permcats, which don't use this organisation at all. Alai 07:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree in principle to what you say, you may or may not recall that the current structure was the result of some fairly vigorous wrangling from certain wikipedians whom I find it nood-less, erm, needless to name at this point. In the case of the geo-stubs, there are separate categories for mainland China and Hong Kong within the PRC category, while the Macau geo-stubs are currently loose in the parent. Unless there is a suggestion to create a (heavily underpropulated) Macau-geo-stub category, this may reopen old wounds. A similar case is true with the struct-stubs - there are HK and mainland China struct-stubs, but no Macau-struct-stub, and if one were created it would be severely undersized. One option which would be handy but which probably wouldn't go down well with anyone would be to combine templates for HK and Macau into one geo and one struct category covering both SARs but - as I say - this probably wouldn't meet with much approval. Grutness...wha? 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally happy with either option you've alluded to for Macau ('rattling', and a "Hong Kong and Macau"/SARs cat). This may or may not amount to re-opening old wounds, but the current situation is far from satisfactory, much less "healed". As I say, it doesn't map to the permcats, in the case of the structs, it doesn't correspond to the "scope" of the present-day sovereign state in its internationally recognised borders (a bit like the Israel stubs situation in reverse), and it's been cited as a precedent for rescoping every (proposed) China type to "Mainland China", and splitting off an (unproposed) Hong Kong version -- which then gets taken to SFD, at which point there's recrimination, shameless padding of the category, and general suppuration. It's in short, pretty much repeatedly poking WSS in the eye on every organisational principle we claim to have. Normally we run a mile at giving special status to "disputed" regions -- and Hong Kong and Macau aren't even disputed (in any meaninful sense), they're part of the PRC. Alai 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Grutness, there isn't a problem with creating a new stubcat for any Chinese division that would require one - "Mainland" is not a division, but Shanghai and Hong Kong are. There is no problem having the Macau stubs floating in the general china cat, Macau is part of China. Nor would there really be a problem with creating a Shanghai stub-category if there were enough of them to form one. SchmuckyTheCat 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be problems for Macau. With a separate cat, there would be problems of size. Macau does not have enough stubs to comfortably have its own stub categories (only about a dozen geo-stubs, for instance). And yet there are speecific editors who particularly look for Macau stubs, which would be very hard to find if mixed in with all other Chinese stubs. I'd forgotten that Shanghai is also a SAR, but I don't see a problem with adding that into such a category. This may yet be a reasonable compromise solution. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid Shanghai isn't an SAR. It's a city (note: rather different from western usage) placed at province-level. — Instantnood 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case ignore the last lines of my comment. The rest still applies and it still sounds a reasonable idea for HK and Mo. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may perhaps be interested to take a look at the webpages posted at Wikipedia talk:categorisation. :-) — Instantnood 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case ignore the last lines of my comment. The rest still applies and it still sounds a reasonable idea for HK and Mo. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid Shanghai isn't an SAR. It's a city (note: rather different from western usage) placed at province-level. — Instantnood 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be problems for Macau. With a separate cat, there would be problems of size. Macau does not have enough stubs to comfortably have its own stub categories (only about a dozen geo-stubs, for instance). And yet there are speecific editors who particularly look for Macau stubs, which would be very hard to find if mixed in with all other Chinese stubs. I'd forgotten that Shanghai is also a SAR, but I don't see a problem with adding that into such a category. This may yet be a reasonable compromise solution. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Grutness, there isn't a problem with creating a new stubcat for any Chinese division that would require one - "Mainland" is not a division, but Shanghai and Hong Kong are. There is no problem having the Macau stubs floating in the general china cat, Macau is part of China. Nor would there really be a problem with creating a Shanghai stub-category if there were enough of them to form one. SchmuckyTheCat 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally happy with either option you've alluded to for Macau ('rattling', and a "Hong Kong and Macau"/SARs cat). This may or may not amount to re-opening old wounds, but the current situation is far from satisfactory, much less "healed". As I say, it doesn't map to the permcats, in the case of the structs, it doesn't correspond to the "scope" of the present-day sovereign state in its internationally recognised borders (a bit like the Israel stubs situation in reverse), and it's been cited as a precedent for rescoping every (proposed) China type to "Mainland China", and splitting off an (unproposed) Hong Kong version -- which then gets taken to SFD, at which point there's recrimination, shameless padding of the category, and general suppuration. It's in short, pretty much repeatedly poking WSS in the eye on every organisational principle we claim to have. Normally we run a mile at giving special status to "disputed" regions -- and Hong Kong and Macau aren't even disputed (in any meaninful sense), they're part of the PRC. Alai 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:SchmuckyTheCat turned the perm cats empty or almost empty, and blocked whatever attempts to revert him. Therefore they were deleted. As a result the perm cat structure isn't actually an indicator. — Instantnood 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. — Instantnood 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support flatten all Chinese sub-categories. Any first level administrative division of China, whether it be a first-level city, an autonomous region, a province, or the SARS that has enough stubs should have a child stub-cat. This mirrors what is going on with non-stub categories. SchmuckyTheCat 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: SARs ≠ SARS. Deletion of perm categories has not been justified in the first place. — Instantnood 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope Schmucky just has a problem with his caps key (must be hard typing with paws, after all), and isn't suggesting that Hong Kong and Macau are dangerously infectious... (One could perhaps argue about the free-market capitalism aspect...) Alai 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: SARs ≠ SARS. Deletion of perm categories has not been justified in the first place. — Instantnood 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep. Different meanings. Michael G. Davis 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware they have a different meaning; the question is, are the "Mainland China" level of organisation appropriate to have, as well as -- or in the latter case, currently instead of -- the PRC ones? We don't have a separate category for the "Mainland" of every country that has one, most obviously. Alai 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it usual for countries to have similar arrangements of separation? Michael G. Davis 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware they have a different meaning; the question is, are the "Mainland China" level of organisation appropriate to have, as well as -- or in the latter case, currently instead of -- the PRC ones? We don't have a separate category for the "Mainland" of every country that has one, most obviously. Alai 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my comments a little, since this got quite messy over time, my first choice would be to merge HK and Macao stub categories into one SAR stub category, this cat to be a subcat of a PRC stub category, in much the same way that the SARs are a specific special part of the PRC: within the country but separate. Similar measures could be taken with stub subtypes such as geo-stubs and bio-stubs. In the case of geo-stubs, the Chinese category is getting close to the point of splitting by province anyway, and having the SARs as a subcat at the same level as provinces would make sense. Under this scheme there would be no need for a separate "Mainland" subcat, as those stubs not connected with the SARs (of those provinces with their own stubs) could float free in the main PRC category. In the case of the bio-stubs, politician-stubs, general stubsand other types, the SARs would have their own subcat of the equivalent PRC stub type, with all other stubs floating free in the main PRC-whatever-stub cat. This would work in the same way that (to use a fairly weak, but useful analogy) stubs for many Oceanian countries with small numbers of stubs float free in the Oceania stubs category while the larger/more obvious splits (in that case Australia, New Zealand, PNG, and Fiji) have their own subcats. Grutness...wha? 10:12, 16 December 2006 (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.