Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 18



Category:Leaders of the Communist Party of China

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Leaders of the Communist Party of China to Category:Communist Party of China politicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Vaguely defined, and there is really no good way to narrow down the definition as currently phrased. (It was not, for example, limited to members of the Politburo.)  Upmerge.  --Nlu (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nominator, without prejudice to creating a more specific category in future to match List of general secretaries and chairmen of the Communist Party of China (note that List of leaders of the Communist Party of China redirects to that title), or "Heads of state/government" like some others within . – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Shrigley (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kansas City Royals navigational boxes

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Kansas City Royals navigational boxes to Category:Kansas City Royals templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Mach other similar categories Astros4477 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting american people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting australian people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting belgian people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting british people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting canadian people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting english people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting irish people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting priests convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Propose deleting scottish people convicted of child sexual abuse


 * Nominator's rationale: Likely target of BLP and vandalism issues that serves no real beneficial purpose to the encyclopedia and potentially violates UNDUE in at least some of the articles inthe category No  unique  names  15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

These categories are based on conviction, so I am inclined to say "keep all". But before I do so, I have one concern, which is how the concept of "child sexual abuse" ties in with the actual charges on which people are convicted? If someone is convicted of raping a child, that clearly fits this category ... but what if the charge was indecently exposing themselves to a minor? Child sex abuse is a little scanty, and I worry that we may not have a clear definition of what types of offence are labelled "child sexual abuse". Can anyone point to a source which would allow a stable and neutral definition of the scope of this category? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC) *Delete per nom. I am not convinced that the term is really clear enough for use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems we're asking for a solution to a non-problem. "Likely target of BLP and vandalism issues" is not a reason to delete a meaningful category -in fact, every major BLP article, for example, is a "likely target of BLP and vandalism issues", but we don't use it as a reason to delete. Second, "that serves no real beneficial purpose to the encyclopedia" is a personal and unexplained opinion -as any meaningful navigational aid, this brings beneficial purpose to the encyclopedia and its readers. As for UNDUE violations, if there are, they can be simply solved by removing the questionable entries from the category. I would only like to see them renamed to "...people convicted of underage sex", given that sometimes (depending on laws) such convictions come from episodes like 18 years olds having sex with 17 years olds, and to cluster them together with real child predators seems problematic. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a legitimate category for some particularly obnoxious offenders. Since the criterion is "convicted", there is no BLP issue over libel, since it will be true.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Legitimate category. Hasn't had any vandalism or disagreement on the Canadian page. Donmike10 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep --- disagree with reasoning to delete Unibond (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all No valid reason given to delete. These categories are not BLP issues, all of these people having references in their articles proving they were convicted of these crimes.  And you can't delete something because you fear vandalism.  We have this same conversation going on at a deletion review at .   D r e a m Focus  21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and an obvious keep at that. Since the categories are specifically about people convicted of sex crimes against children, the only way these can be BLP violations is if someone is erroneously or maliciously added to the category, and that can be taken care of by regular editing. AniMate 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This stems from . -- No  unique  names  02:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. In general, I support keeping people-by-crime categories when they are restricted to people convicted of an offence, and I prefer deleting those which are not based on a conviction. Conviction is a binary choice; either someone was convicted or they were not, whereas any other way of categorising people-by-crime involves a lot of great areas which our binary categorisation system cannot accommodate.
 * Agree, that's why I would move them to Category:People convicted for underage sex or something similar. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They have categories by nation in the parent categories of Category:Sex offenders by nationality, Category:Statutory rapists and Category:Rapists by nationality.  D r e a m Focus  15:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been misunderstood. I would keep the nation-separated categories, I'd just substitute "child sexual abuse" with "underage sex". -- Cycl o pia talk  15:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out other categories exist that could handle that. Statutory rape means underage sex.  D r e a m Focus  15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Could be merged there, then? -- Cycl o pia talk  15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Child sexual abuse normally means younger children.  Statutory rape means you can't prove he didn't just seduce her, or it wasn't consensual, this way you just prove sex existed and can more easily convict them of that.   D r e a m Focus  15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Child sexual abuse normally means younger children. - I understand, but where do we put the line to decide what goes in the former and in the latter category? Where does abuse on a 12-y.o. kid go? We need objective criteria, especially for something so delicate, otherwise we should stay on the safe side and lump them together under the least concerning definition. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At the Roman Polanski article's talk page you can read the long debate that happened off and on again at times(see archives), where some don't consider it rape if they are a fan of the rapist, or the victim wasn't a virgin. So people just argue constantly back and forth over what categories to put someone in, trying to downplay the severity of the abuse of anyone they are a fan of.  You just have to look at what crime they were convicted of and use that to determine what category they belong in.   D r e a m Focus  18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You just have to look at what crime they were convicted of  - Official crime definitions change from state to state, from time to time. They're too diverse and variable to be used as an objective discriminant. We need some kind of general and unquestionable line to draw, and I doubt one exists. That's why putting all under "underage sex" or "statutory rape" seems to me the best way to go. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Underage sex" or "statutory rape" makes it sound like it was consensual. Check the news coverage, and what the media calls it.  Then argue back and forth on the talk page on which category to use.  Saying all the convicted child molesters are just guilty of "underage sex" or "sex with a minor" sounds rather insulting to the victims.  I believe most areas have the law different for having sex with a child below the age of 18(or whatever the legal age is in that area) and having sex with someone below the age of 12, 10, or whatever.   D r e a m Focus  18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying all the convicted child molesters are just guilty of "underage sex" or "sex with a minor" sounds rather insulting to the victims. - Why? They are guilty of "sex with a minor" - that's technically entirely correct. Unless you can find a clearcut, general, objective line that separates the two things, I think we should stick with the technical definition. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Having sex" and "raping" are two different things. Anyway, this isn't the place for the discussion.  You need to go to the Wikiproject for crime, and start a discussion there to get some feedback from those familiar with this sort of thing.   D r e a m Focus  19:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only if the category is renamed to the correct name for the actual offense. Just because people are considered odious doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to get it correct. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - these categories have a clear criterion for inclusion (the perso having been convicted of this action), and that's enough to ensure that BLP patrols have no trouble determining the validity of any categorization here. We don't just delete any negative person-related category for fear of BLP vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete if it is not possible to Move to "Fooians convicted of statutory rape". Category is vague and terminology is loaded. Shrigley (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps a rename as Category:People convicted of sexual offenses against children would be more suitable. (Or substitute "sexual crimes" for "sexual offenses"; and/or substitute "involving" for "against"). Dezastru (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I don't really think it is amenable to renaming except possibly the subarticles. The problem is that different jurisdictions may use different terminology... Yworo (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:People convicted of sexual offenses with minors. The reality is that "child" has a fluid meaning, and it is not always clear that is the best term to describe the victims in these cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the concept, as it's a useful method of categorising; the only grey area is people who have had their convictions vacated, and surely we should do the same here as whatever we do with people who have had convictions for other crimes vacated. No comment on "child sexual abuse" versus "sexual offenses with minors" versus whatever else.  Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all previous arguments. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female actors in BDSM pornographic films

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting female actors in bdsm pornographic films


 * Propose deleting actors in films of animal pornography


 * Propose deleting female actors in films of animal pornography


 * Propose deleting actors in bdsm pornographic films


 * Propose deleting male actors in bdsm pornographic films


 * Nominator's rationale: Clearly overcategorization as per WP:OC, specifically "performers by action or appearance". It starts with this, and eventually you will end up with Category:Female actors in INSERT GENRE HERE pornographic films, Category:Female actors in pornographic films involving horses, etc. Nymf hideliho! 13:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all – no need to upmerge (IMO) since these are recent creations, in addition to eg Category:Pornographic film actors by nationality. Oculi (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- These are essentially performacne by performer categories, though a particularly obnoxious kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all Overcategorization. AniMate 21:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete it is enough to categorize people as having been in pornographic films. If people want to go over the specifics of the nature of the films, they can do that in articles.  However I see no gain to doing so in categories, especially since it basically ends up being a case of performmer by performance.  This is just too specific for categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom I could see some merit to the BDSM category, but the animal pornography categories should be deleted entirely as it is very few people and it can be upmerged into the zoosexuality article. Asarelah (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all unnecessary Over-categorization which makes locating information more difficult BO &#124; Talk 08:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Air Force organizations in Korea

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:United States Air Force organizations in Korea to Category:United States Air Force units and formations in the Korean War
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a double of Category:United States Air Force units and formations in the Korean War. The other category is named according to the standard naming conventions, and thus this category should be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Question is USAF not still in South Korea? If so, we should either Keep or reverse merge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep both The USAF is still in Korea. Category:United States Air Force organizations in Korea includes all USAF units which have been in Korea.  Its proper child is Category:United States Air Force units and formations in the Korean War which only covers the period of the Korean War and is part of Korean War category parents.  As such, they cannot be merged without messing up the category structure here.  Hmains (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The United States Air Force is still in Korea. There is no reason to assume all such things are connected with the Korea War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Upmerge to Category:United States Air Force units and formations in the Korean War and Category:United States military in South Korea, Category:Bases of the United States Air Force in South Korea or Category:Military facilities of the United States in South Korea. as appropriate. Most of the content is of USAF units and formations that have been stationed in South Korea at some time, but this is non-notable compared with serving in a war. There are no categories for USAF units and formations that have been stationed in (say) Germany at some time, or for US Army, Navy or Marines units and formations that have been stationed in South Korea at some time. And the 22d Operations Group seems to have been based in Okinawa and flew in the Korean War from there, so should not be in the category Category:United States Air Force organizations in Korea anyway. Hugo999 (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * comment readers of these categories' contents will see that no bases or military facilities are actually included here. Upmerge from Category:United States Air Force organizations in Korea to Category:United States Air Force units and formations in the Korean War in any case would inaccurate since the units are formations directly included in this category were not necessarily involved in the Korean War.  Those units and formations are already in Category:United States Air Force units and formations in the Korean War.  Hmains (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment a sibling now exists as Category:Military units of the United States Army in South Korea, to match the similar Category:Military Units of the United States Army in Europe Hmains (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Stationing a military unit in another country in peacetime is still a non-notable category; and the few categories of this type are grossly incomplete. Are these categories useful? And the titles should be standardized as "United States Air Force units and formations” or "military units and formations": not organizations, Military Units or military units. Hugo999 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment non notable to what? It is certainly notable to the unit involved and it is the unit that we are talking about here.  In any case, notable is not a test for categories; it is a test only for articles.  The test for categories is whether it improves navigation to articles.  Standarding names would be good if the military forces involved uses the same name to refer to their organizations.  Hmains (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I will nominate Category:Military Units of the United States Army in Europe for deletion; it only has seven articles in it and is parented on Category:Organizations based in Europe rather than any categories relating to the US military in Europe so have little value for finding articles. And why create additional categories while the present categories are being discussed? Hugo999 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The arguments against this category have convinced me that the current form is problematic and notes something that is not worth noting. However, since as has been noted the US Air Force is still in Korea, assuming the contents of this category relate to the Korean War is false, and so we cannot merge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People executed by China

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:People executed by China to Category:People executed by China and Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China
 * Nominator's rationale: Recently, Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China was merged into Category:People executed by China, but I think the merger was ill-advised. (See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_8 for the merger discussion, which was premised by the recent merger between People's Republic of China and China articles.)  The reason is simple: while it is true that the PRC article has been moved/merged with China, the problem is that right now, Category:People executed by China category refers to all executions throughout Chinese history. (See the other subcategories -- e.g., Category:People executed by the Han Dynasty and Category:People executed by the Tang Dynasty.) Executions by the People's Republic of China therefore should specifically remain as a subcategory thereof as a historical differentiation.  --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

However, I am much less persuaded that its title should include PRC. It would be better to ensure that such categories refer specifically to the time period involved, so I would prefer Category:People executed by China since 1949. In this case, the scope is the same, but in other cases the explicit use of time is needed to clarify that this is category by era rather than by geography. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I closed the previous nomination, and encouraged Nlu to make this split nomination. No opinion on the merits, except that the "PRC ≠ China" argument doesn't seem to have held water in previous nominations. Looking forward to hearing other opinions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Split per nom, as periodization is needed -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was the nominator of the discussion which did the merger, and Nlu kindly notified me of this nomination. In this case, the set of People executed by China is split by historical period, so I can see a good case for ensuring that that there is a category for the period since the establishment of the PRC 1949.
 * Comment That can still potentially lead to unintended consequences (although I do not have an example right now). The Republic of China forces still held parts of mainland in the early 1950s, and any executions by it (in mainland China) would fit into a "since 1949" category and yet would not be by the PRC.  --Nlu (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I probably supported the rename, but I think that a split on this by period may be appropriate. WE need a RoC (1912-49) category, which might include areas not conquered by PRC until later; a PRC category.  The China category should be a container covering all periods.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Split. Per nom. We should be careful to attribute the correct things to the correct entity. PRC!= China. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Split but to the since 1949 category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Splitting or Renaming: Category:People executed by Russia is understood to mean post-1991 Russia, preceded by Category:People executed by the Soviet Union and with earlier pre-Soviet categories, without splitting or including the years in the category title. Add an explanatory note at the top of the Chinese category if necessary. Hugo999 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Until we limit China to the post-1949 PRC Hugo999's suggeestion does not work. Russia is supposed to be limited to the post-1991 Russia, but many categories use "Russia" and especially "Russian" more broadly.  I do not think there has been a decision to not allow actions of China in 1850 to be called "by China".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment re above, the present (working) situation is that actions say in 1850 would be in the subcategory Category:People executed by the Qing Dynasty and current executions would be in the main category Category:People executed by China Hugo999 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the category would get too large, eventually, requiring subcategorization that would then be asymmetrical. While some may not view lack of symmetry to be a problem, I think it is one.  --Nlu (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The present category has 42 articles, and most new entries will be in the subcategory Category:21st-century executions by China, so the number of articles will not increase by much. Some of the present content is of Emperors, Empresses and sundry hangers-on executed during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms (690 to 960) period. They should be in a subcategory which would also be a subcategory of Category: Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms people, but the only (rather long) title I can think of is Category:People executed by China during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. Hugo999 (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose split. "China" by default refers to modern China, ie PRC. Any earlier time can be specified in sub-categories. Cross-categorization of people by the era in which they lived reduces ambiguity to a negligible level. Shrigley (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. While it is true that the new Wikipedia articles for English-speaking countries will necessarily be "future-looking," when it comes to non-English speaking countries (such as China), new biographical articles tend to have a mix of modern and historical personalities, with historical personalities actually tending to outnumber modern ones.  Therefore, future additions to the category are, I think, just as likely to populate 20th century (and earlier) executions as 21st century executions.  And in that context, "China" is not necessarily PRC.  --Nlu (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment there is room for expansion as well in English-speaking countries, and no reason to assume that future biographies for those from English speaking countries will be limited to people presently alive. However I think that most people would consider an excution done in 1850 in Beijing to have been "done by China" so if we want to sperate by government we need to do that for the present as well as the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I still see no need to split out the present period/administration for China (ie PRC) as it is not done for other countries. And the number of articles in the category may well increase, but there are not a large number of articles in it now. Hugo999 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Category:People executed by Poland and Category:People executed by France are divided up by various governments. We also have a bunch of categories for previous countries in what is now Italy, like the Republic of Venice and the Republic of Genoa.  We have Category:People executed by the Mughal Empire, instead of trying to use the India category in some sort of trans-historical way.  It is very clear there is a desire to link executions to the specific government that did them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Split per nom After looking over the sister cats, especially the contents of Category:People executed by Poland and Category:People executed by France, the split proposed here seems to bring this category best into line with other categories. This is not like the Turkey/ Ottoman Empire split where the former term refers only to the modern country.  China refers to all the various governments that have ruled over the country, so it makes sense to split out an execution category for the current government's executions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:People executed by Romania is also divided up by with sub-sections for the People's Republic of Romania and the Kingdom of Romania. Dividing up the by country categories by the specific ruling government during the time of the execution seems to be fairly standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No; for Romania the parent category includes executions (vf the Ceausescus) under the current ggovernment/regime, with seperate subcategories for past government/regimes only Hugo999 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sarawak-stub

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting


 * Propose deleting


 * Nominator's rationale: This was wrongly nominated at templates for discussion. Opening discussion here. The previous discussion has been pasted in below. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There's already a Malaysia stub and Sarawak geo stub template.. so why we need this ?? Is Sarawak not in Malaysia ? &mdash; иz нίpнόpIcons-flag-nz.png 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Just because something is part of something else doesn't preclude it having its own stub template. More specific templates help organise articles in a much clearer fashion for anyone who potentially wants to start working on that topic. I would never expect it to be used side by side with the Malaysia template, but the Malaysia template can always cover subtemplates, if it needs to. Similar cases exist, such as Template:Ohio-stub. However, the image should change to the geo-stub flag. Much cleaner, and not OR. I do note however, that the user who created these templates does actually somehow hold the opinion that Sabah and Sarawak aren't part of Malaysia, so they may not be currently very well applied. If there is a pragmatic reason to delete, such as there simply not being enough entires to justify a unique tag, then that's another matter, but determining that would definitely require a bit of cleanup, and I suspect in the end that there are a lot of Sabah and Sarawak stubs. CMD (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep These are provinces of Malaysia, and there is no reaon why we should not have stub categories for them. There should also be one for Penninsula Malaysia (formerly Malaya).  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  Comment Delete - Most of the articles in these categories were either Malaysia wide articles and been added to both of these categories in addition to (or instead of) Malaysia stubs, or were not stubs. After cleaning this up, remaining membership is 4 and 13 respectively, which is not usually enough to justify stub categories. We have subnational stub categories when there are enough non-geography stub-sized articles to justify them, which I don't think is met in this case - virtually all the remaining members are political parties and also tagged with Malaysia-party-stub. However most of these parties seem to focus specifically on one or both of these regions.
 * Also, the CfD notice looks horrible on a stub template. In future this should be added to the associated categories instead, when moving discussions here from TfD. --Qetuth (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum - it appears upon searching there may be enough untagged stubs related to Sabah/Sarawak to bring both categories back up to 15-20, but not much further. As with the political parties, most of these stubs would usually be tagged by type long before region in other countries. A look around what other subnational stub tags we use shows that we do not generally take this step until other methods of subdividing the country's stubs are exhausted, or in cases of a clear need for distintion from the parent country (examples include Abkhazia or some distant island territories). I don't see this in our articles on these two states, so solidifying my vote. --Qetuth (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Template:Malaysia-stub. These are the only 2 of the 13 states of Malaysia to have separate stub categories at the moment; the Peninsula comprises 11 states which do not have such categories. I thank Qetuth for his work and agree with his conclusions. Only the "geo" sub-categories have enough members to justify separate templates/categories, and they exist for all the states. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - for the majority of history, neither Sabah nor Sarawak were part of Peninsular Malaysia.  "Peninsular Malaysians" require a passport/visa to travel/work in Sabah and Sarawak.  Sabah and Sarawak also retain their own parliament and culture. Leng T&#39;che (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute any of that, but what we don't have are stub articles concerning that majority of history to populate these categories with. --Qetuth (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep; there are at least a few Sarawak stubs out there, and more are likely given available information and the broad nature of the topic.  dci  &#124;  TALK   19:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The existence of a child stub (e.g. Sarawak-geo-stub) isn't reason for deleting the parent stub. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Category:Sarawak stubs and Category:Sabah stubs to Category:Malaysia stubs. Neither of these are close to the 60-article minimum.  However, keep the templates — they're useful templates, and if we ever get 60+ non-geo-stubs for either of these states, it will be substantially less work to change the templates' categories and recreate those categories than to recreate the templates and the categories.  I'd suggest that we create templates for the other eleven states as well.  This is precisely what we've done for lots of US county-level stubs: MonroeOH-geo-stub, for example, puts articles into the regional Category:Appalachian Ohio geography stubs, not the nonexistent Category:Monroe County, Ohio geography stubs.  Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.