Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 31[edit]

Category:Indian netball biography stubs/Template:India-netball-bio-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 Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Delete, or else upmerge to Category:Netball biography stubs and Category:Indian sportspeople stubs. There is only one article in the above category, and I'm not sure that it even meets WP:ATHLETE or more generally WP:BIO. I doubt that any other Indian netballers will become sufficiently notable in the foreseeable future either. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cat and upmerge template. Waacstats (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2010 (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.

Category:Malaysia geography stubs subcats and templates[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge these three categories and their templates to the parent cat Category:Malaysia geography stubs. I just resorted the category to try to expand them and they are still far undersized. They should be upmerged until they have grown to the requisite number. Dana boomer (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Delete cat and upmerge templates. Waacstats (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2010 (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.

October 29[edit]

Cat:Dune 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have seen the previous proposal about deleting this category and stub template. But that proposal was asking to delete everything. I'm only asking to delete the category, because of lack of articles. The Dune wikiproject continues to keep on top of improving the articles for this topic. Several of the articles found in this category, if given an honest evaluation, could easily be changed to Start class, instead of stub class. So, even the current 22 article list is bloated. Propose removing the category, but keeping the template for upmerge to the current parent categories Cat:fictional universe stubs and Cat:science fiction stubs. Dawynn (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2010 (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.

October 28[edit]

Cat:Falls County, Texas 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 Speedied - empty category with no template


Unproposed, and contrary to standard practice (we don't have general stub categories for individual counties within states, and all these bar one are geo-stubs, so would be in a geo-stub category rather than a general one even if we did). It's an odd one - {{FallsTX-geo-stub}} exists, and, because of its relative lack of use, correctly feeds articles into Cat:Central Texas geography stubs (which, at under 200 stubs, is hardly overstretched). However, someone has created this category and is adding stubs to it manually (i.e., without a template). With this and the correctly templated articles, there are fewer than 30 Falls County stubs - fewer than half of what is needed for a separate stub category. This category should clearly be deleted, and the articles in it should be correctly marked with {{FallsTX-geo-stub}} (except for the one high school article, which should get {{Texas-school-stub}}). Grutness...wha? 22:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cat - mark articles with proper stub tags. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (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.

Turkish Broadcasting stub 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 Delete all, upmerge Cat:Turkish television station stubs as proposed bu Grutness. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is a fairly bewildering tree:

At the very least, we have two "shell" categories which can be ditched, but with only 23 stubs, I think the whole lot can be upmerged into Cat:Turkey stubs and Cat:Television station stubs (or its European and Asian counterparts). Grutness...wha? 05:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Turkish broadcasting and Turkish television stubs, upmerge Turkish television stations to parent cats. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2010 (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.

October 26[edit]

Category:KYOVA stubs/Template:KYOVA-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 delete. — ξxplicit 20:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Category appears to be solely for the use of a WikiProject, is severely undersized, and meets none of the naming guidelines that I know of. Proposing for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and suggest to the WikiProject that a talk page assessment template will do the same job and others, and be far more useful for their project. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 26 October 2010 (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.

Category:Orissa geography stubs subcats and templates[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


30 Orissa geography stub subcats

All of these are severely undersized, and from the current size of the parent cats they have no chance of getting to a sufficient size in the near future. I propose that they all be upmerged to the Orissa geography stub cat until such time as more articles on the geography of this region are created. Upmerging all will bring the parent cat to around 210 articles. Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per nom. Yet more handiwork from a repeat offender frequently mentioned name at this page, User:Paalappoo. If only just for once he'd propose things... Grutness...wha? 03:40, 26 October 2010 (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.

October 25[edit]

Template:Euro-*-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 as proposed. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming:

{{Euro-stub}} to {{Europe-stub}}
{{Euro-election-stub}} to {{Europe-election-stub}}
{{Euro-tv-prog-stub}} to {{Europe-tv-prog-stub}}
{{Euro-tv-stub}} to {{Europe-tv-stub}}

Reason: All other (around 90) Europe related stub templates are of that form; these are the only ones starting with "Euro-". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough, and a good idea - as long as the older names are kept as redirects. I say "older names" because the original standard at WP:WSS was "Euro-". It must be simply that these four were missed when the names were changed over. As you can see from this, a lot of the older names remain as redirects. Grutness...wha? 11:03, 25 October 2010 (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.

October 24[edit]

Category:Artemis Fowl stubs/Template:ArtemisFowl-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 Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Very small cat, very unlikely to get any bigger. Propose placing articles in proper parent cats and deleting. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one has a long, intriguing history. The original template (the badly-namked {{AFStub}}) was deleted, along with the category, in April 2006. It was quickly re-created (with a still-poor template name of {{Artemis Fowl-stub}}) by a group of A.F. fans, and gained 30 stubs for its re-created category. Despite this being severely undersized, it was kept when nominated for deletion in December 2006, partly by number of comments and partly by way of a WikiProject devoted to the subject (albeit a fairly inactive one). It appears as though the number of stubs has dropped to the point where even a Wikiproject would be hard pressed to say how it is more effective than a "to do" list on a project subpage... Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 25 October 2010 (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.

Category:Anglican cathedral 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. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Created by a now-blocked new user. No template associated with this category - all eight articles in it have been added by directly adding the category to the page and all are still in the parent Anglican church stub cat. A little over 300 articles in the parent cat, and current properly uploaded cat is by country (US). By the way, this subcat (the US one) could probably be separated onto its own, as it has over 100 articles in it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarheelz123 is not a blocked user. But you're right that this is not the way a stub category should be made, and we don't currently split churchees up by type of building (denomination, yes; cathedral/church/chapel, no). It's been depopulated, BTW. Delete, unless anyone wants to propose that we start splitting them that way...? Grutness...wha? 09:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is off topic, but how is he not a blocked user? Popups says he's blocked, his userpage is tagged as being blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and when you try to edit his talk page it says he was blocked on 27 September 2009 for copyright vios. Am I really missing something here? Dana boomer (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ack - my fault. When checking the block logs I entered his name as blocker, not as blockee. No wonder nothing showed up. You're right, he's blocked. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 25 October 2010 (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.


October 21[edit]

Template:ClevelandNeighborhood[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 and retag with {{CuyahogaOH-geo-stub}}. Jafeluv (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Misnamed, only 11 uses, unproposed, no permcat for pages which would get this template (see Category:Cleveland, Ohio. I think it should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the template you suggested is named correctly, and represents a permcat (Category:Greater Cleveland). This one is neither. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't often participate at SFD, so please forgive me if I misuse the terminology. I was merely suggesting that the nominated template could be replaced with the appropriate county template instead of a straight deletion. If the lack of a permcat is the primary concern, would Category:Neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio be an appropriate parent? - Eureka Lott 19:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - that's not a stub category, just as the template is not - by name at least - a stub template (though that is clearly its intent). All stub templates should conform to standard stub naming, as should all stub categories, and new stub types (i.e., category/template combinations, or either singly) should be discussed prior to their creation to ensure that they fit in with the wider scheme of stub types and also follows the standard naming for stub types. This one quite clearly does not in any way fit that scheme or pattern. If there were sufficient stubs for a stub template for Cleveland to be worthhile, it would be at ClevelandOH-geo-stub, and would cater for not just neighborhoods but for all geographic features in Cleveland (e.g, parks, plazas, creeks). I'd have no objection to such a styub types being proposed, but currently the Cuyahoga one does that job pretty effectively. As such, my !vote would be to delete and retag the articles with the CuyahogaOH-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:12, 25 October 2010 (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.


October 18[edit]

Cat:Goosebumps 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 both. Any stub which could fit into here should be tagged as {{child-book-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This was discovered in July of 2006 with over 50 articles. It now has no articles, and the main category only boasts 12 articles, with very few of these (if any) truly classifiable as stubs. I could see possibly keeping the template, {{Goosebumps-stub}}, but the articles and template should be classified under parent category Cat:Children's book stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of category and template as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2010 (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.




October 11[edit]

Various from DOT[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 speedy keep - nominator misunderstood how these templates are used


Listed on WP:DOT, but DOT can't be used for stub templates, so I brought it here. No transclusions. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all. These stub templates were formerly in use and have all been deprecated by WP:WPSS, and as such are deliberately kept to avoid redlinking. Each of them contains text explaining why they have been kept and which templates should be used instead. this is common practice on stub templates (others to use this method include {{football-stub}}. They serve the same purpose as deprecated soft-redirect categories, and are p;eriodically checked by the stub-sorting project to ensure that no-one is using them and saving without checking what they say. WP:DOT should mention this form of deprtecation of templates, why it doesn't is a mystery (it will in a few minutes). Grutness...wha? 22:59, 11 October 2010 (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.

October 10[edit]

{{NetherlandsAntilles-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 all templates and the category to 'CaribbeanNetherlands-'. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Moved from incorrect forum Grutness...wha?

This template is redundant due to the Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles - the Netherland Antilles no longer exist, and thus there is no longer any possible application. Jan 1922 (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The template is rarely used anyway, since almost all the items which could use it already use equivalent templates for Sint M., Sint E., Saba, Curaçao or Bonaire. Given that the Netherlands Antilles no longer exist, we may need to also consider what to do with {{NetherlandsAntilles-stub}} and Cat:Netherlands Antilles stubs, since (with one or two major exceptions) stub types are not divided by former political entities. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a single stub template for the Netherlands Antilles could remain, for use on articles which will continue, despite the dissolution, to remain associated primarily with the Netherlands Antilles (e.g. Netherlands Antilles at the 1960 Summer Olympics). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I will just edit it to refer to the "former Netherlands Antilles" (I'm presuming that's what we do with the GDR) to prevent confusion with the current state. Jan 1922 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be opposed to that, simply because of the potential proliferation of stub templates for former states if this were to set a precedent. As I said, we have a handful for former states, but in each case there is a huge body of stubs relating to it (e.g., Soviet Union, Ancient Rome). I doubt that Netherlands Antilles would fall into the same category. In any case, this is now used on precisely zero stubs - it was only on one before the proposal to delete it. I would have no objection to replacing this stub and the other NA ones with a {{CaribbeanNetherlands-geo-stub}} (-bio-, -politician-, etc), since that is the new name for the "rump antilles". Grutness...wha? 22:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are also redundant as far as I can see:

The last one has already been re-written to describe the subjects as former, but I think it can be replaced by the generic template. Jan 1922 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • As above, Changing these to CaribbeanNetherlands- and if necessary adding the equivalent Curaçao- etc stub templates would be the normal way to proceed. Admittedly, this isn['t the sort of thing which has happened often since stub templatign got organised, so "normal' is working from a very small data-set! Grutness...wha? 22:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to {{CaribbeanNetherlands-geo-stub}}, etc. per Grutness. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (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.

October 8[edit]

{{China-university-stub}} / Category:China university 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 Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


301 articles Propose rename to Category:Chinese university stubs per other subcats. of Category:China stubs and common sense grammar. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 8 October 2010 (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.

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 discussion was Rename all. Consensus is rather weak here, but is strengthened by the string of "rename" !votes at the end. Coming in after the main debate, they are an indicator of the persuasiveness of the arguments presented. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
United States foo and United Kingdom foo to American foo and British foo.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that recently. I plan to go down the entire tree, I just have to find the time. — ξxplicit 16:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)withdraw vote due to relisting with added entries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 02:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note. I've relisted this discussion from Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/September/17#United States film biography stubs for an all-encompassing nomination to address Od Mishehu's concerns. In addendum to my original rationale, I would also like to point to the fact that the parent categories is Category:American people stubs and Category:British people stubs, as opposed to Category:United States people stubs and Category:United Kingdom people stubs. This, and the fact that it seems that these two category trees are the only ones who use Foo people stubs over Fooian people stubs, only points to the fact that these are inconsistent with the entire tree of Category:People stubs by nationality. — ξxplicit 02:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per many similar discussions in the past. "United States" is a perfectly acceptable adjective, and is widely used for stub types; "United Kingdom" is deliberately used in those cases where categories include people from Northern Ireland, who are technically not British. Furthermore, the general rule for stub categories is where a parent permanent category is "Fooian X", a stub category is "Fooian X stubs". Where a parent permcat is "X in/of Foo", the stub category is "Foo stubs". Most of the cases mentioned are of the latter form. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarification, you're aware that the nominated categories deal only with biographies, correct? I've made note that Northern Ireland is an exception. You state that the general rule of thumb where a parent permanent category is "Fooian X", a stub category is "Fooian X stubs". Taking the first category nominated, Category:United States artist stubs, the parent categories include Category:American artists and Category:American people stubs. Applying this rule of thumb—and assuming I didn't miss a point you made—should this not be renamed as proposed? All the United States categories' and United Kingdom categories', save the exception of Northern Ireland, parents or grandparents are American foo and British foo, respectively, as I highlighted in my example. — ξxplicit 08:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Grutness pointed out United Kingdom is not exactly the same as Britain, also potential anomalies re United States - which isn't even the largest country in the Americas ϢereSpielChequers 07:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your second point. Could you please elaborate? — ξxplicit 08:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps - without trying to put words in WSC's mouth - the problem may be exemplified by the book "Essential history of American art" (S.Bailey, Parragon Books, 2001), which contains essential art from the Americas - including Mexico, Argentina, and Canada. The word "American" may be ambiguous, as it does not always refer specifically to the United States. And, as i pointed out before "United States" is an adjective, otherwise you wouldn't have the United States Navy or the United States House of Representatives.Grutness...wha? 08:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not necessarily seeing a problem here. These stub are grouping stub articles by the nationality of the individual. I proposed to rename the categories for two reason: to bring into line with the absolute parent, Category:People by nationality, which uses the Fooian people format rather than the Foo people format, and to bring as much consistency to the category tree as possible—if you'll notice, Category:American people stubs is a mishmash between United States people and American people. How helpful is that, especially when stub categories not relating to the United States or the United Kingdom overwhelmingly use the Fooian people format? Category:People stubs by nationality shows this, just avoid Category:American people stubs under Category:North American people stubs and Category:British people stubs under Category:European people stubs—of which, its subcategories are the nomination—and you'll see it hold true throughout most, if not the entire tree. Whether the art, music, novels, whatever legacy these individuals leave behind is something that represents North America, South American, or any other continent or region as a whole has nothing to do with these stub categories, nor is it what they are meant to do. — ξxplicit 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point I'm making. Mexicans are, by definition, American. So are people from Argentina, Canada, and people from the United States. Conversely, people from Northern Ireland are from the United Kingdom, but are not British. Grutness...wha? 09:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They are North American, yes, and Category:Mexican people stubs and the others are categorized under Category:North American people stubs. Wikipedia makes the distinction here that Americans are only from the United States. This is why we have Category:American people, not Category:United States people. — ξxplicit 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per standard use of adjectives in WP. The argument that Mexicans and Canadians are "Americans" is a little bit forced and artificial. Every regular category in WP uses "American" and "British" for these nationalities and so too should the stub categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all And any variant (e.g. UK foo or U.S. bar) should be changed to "American" or "British" as necessary, per consistency and proper English. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, except perhaps Category:United Kingdom MP stubs.
    Regarding the U.S. categories: While people of the Americas are "Americans", the word is (in English) more commonly associated specfically with the United States. On Wikipedia, in particular, "American" is used to mean "of or relating to the United States". Explicit correctly points out that the top-level parent categories use "American foo", not "United States foo"—cf. Category:American people and Category:American people stubs.
    Regarding the UK categories: The top-level parent categories use "British foo", not "United Kingdom foo"—cf. Category:British people and Category:British people stubs. The point about including people from Northern Ireland causes me to hesitate a little, but there's also the fact that the term "British" can apply to any citizen of the United Kingdom, irrespective of origin (see e.g. here).
    Regarding Category:United Kingdom MP stubs: The situation with this category is more complex, for two reasons, and may require a separate discussion. The first reason is that the occupation of "parliamentarian"—unlike, say, "artist"—is highly jurisdiction-specific, so precise wording is especially important. The second reason is that Category:British MP stubs already exists as a parent of the category, and the other parent is Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all I agree entirely with Grutness. The reason that the tree contains inconsistencies is often (not always) because the given topic is usually (conventionally) talked about in those terms. The English language is not consistent. Consistency should never be imposed for consistencies sake, there needs to be an underlying reason to justify consistency. --Bejnar (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think it should be the reverse: there needs to be an underlying reason to justify inconsistency. In any case, can you please clarify the part about "the given topic is usually (conventionally) talked about in those terms"? I didn't quite understand that. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk)
    The justification for inconsistency is that the world is inconsistent. Have you read "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson? We traditionally talk about, for example, the English language, the British Empire, the United States Army, and the American West. That kind of inconsistency in inherent in a free-ranging language such as English. --Bejnar (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this approach is not ideal when attempting to organize an encyclopedia into units of groupings called categories. In such an effort, some degree of consistency and predictability will assist the user. Users read encyclopedias in part to provide some understanding and order from the chaos of real life, and standardizing the use of some terminology seems helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain how this change "will assist the user". My own opinion is that people will look for the United States Army under US and the American West under American, and that imposing this specific consistency will be more detrimental than beneficial. There is a reason why there is variation here. --Bejnar (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy--a user is familiar with the general category structure and decides to search for this category, which he knows exists but can't quite remember the name. It is an impediment to require the user to remember that this category is the only one among hundreds that uses "United States" as the descriptive adjective, while all the others use "American". It's quite easy to think of many non-browsing situations where consistency could be more helpful than randomness in choice of category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this for various reasons above but if this does go through then I think we need to be careful which categories do change we have Cat:United States Army personnel as a per cat do we really want to change the stub cat to Cat:American army personnel stubs (And likewise for navy/air force/marines/coast guard) along the same lines we have Cat:United States government officials and we are saying we should change it's stub cat to Cat:American government biography stubs!. The political system in the UK is/has never been simple and so we already have a Cat:British MP stubs and a Cat:United Kingdom MP stubs both doing different jobs these should not be merged. Waacstats (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of your examples fit the rename proposal nor its rationale. Category:United States Army personnel shouldn't be renamed because the main article for the category is United States Army; the main article for Category:United States government officials is Federal government of the United States. There's no sense in changing it from United States to American in either case. <light bulb turns on here> Oh, and holy crap, I just came into the realization that some of these categories fit exactly what I'm opposing. I've stricken seven categories that deal with government-related topics, and I think that may be part of what generated the opposes above. Other than that, the rest seem to still be in line with my view on the subject. — ξxplicit 21:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that they didn't fir the rationale (and yet appeared on the list) is why I mentioned them, I would also strike the Cat:British MP stubs as that has different usage to Cat:United Kingdom MP stubs. Waacstats (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, parent article is Parliament of the United Kingdom. That's gone too. Do you oppose the rest as well, or were these the only issues? — ξxplicit 17:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose the rest but the reason for those are discussed above by others and I don't really want to see this go over old ground again so just wanted to make sure that if this goes through some sense remains in the naming. Waacstats (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. There's no reason to name stub categories differently from the corresponding article categories here. If articles are categorized as American sculptors, for example, the logical name for the stub category is American sculptor stubs. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:United States film director stubs, as the parent category is Category:American film directors. Lugnuts (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all (excepting those already struck out of the nomination) for consistency with parent categories. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per above and nom. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (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.

October 7[edit]

Category:Mexican comedian 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. Ruslik_Zero 20:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge - only 10 articles; this scan and this one don't suggest any other stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 7 October 2010 (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/2010/October&oldid=399320824"