Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2010/October/8&oldid=1074237840"