Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/30

&rarr;

 * 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

Noticed while checking the details re the Jilin etc nomination below: not sure how this one slipped through with an adjectival form, but AFAIK it's the only geography stub category which doesn't use the noun. It also may need rescoping - irrespective of how we feel about Tibet one way or the other, this category should be for the current Tibet A.R. to keep it in line with the standard practice of using official top-level regions. The scoping of this category looks a little mpre muddy than that. Grutness...wha?  12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming; I'm not sure how all the others "slipped through" with "noun forms", but they fail to pass tests of normal usage, actual consistency with their permcats, or any reasonable one of practical convenience.  I'm not necessarily against rescoping now that there's templates for all (I think?) said provincial-level entities (which was not the case at time of creation, mind);  OTOH, I sure as heck ain't doing the re-sorting, so I'm going to construe nomination as volunteering so to do.  However, I very much disagree that there's anything "muddy" about the current scope:  compared to the average stub cat, it's a marvel of precision (though I do say so myself), and it uses the PRC's own characterisation of what's "Tibetan".  Some thought should also be given to the issue of putting one interpretation of "Tibet" in Tibet-stub, and a much narrower one in Tibet-geo-stub.  If there's a rescope, a rename to, say, TibetAR-geo-stub might be in order (though I suppose we'd need to keep the redirect by way of the sanity clause, so perhaps that's practically moot.  Alai 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, do you propose changing the other 700+ geography stub categories, all of which use the noun form? We've been through this before many times, and - as always - there are very good reasons to use the noun form where the permcats deliberately avoid using the adjective - which they do with geography by making them all "Geography of Foo". As to the scope, if that's how PRC defines it, then okay, I'll accept that, though it does mean that quite a number of places listed in other regions of China (Gansu, Qinghai, Yunnan, Sichuan) will also be regarded as being in Tibet, which seems odd. A change to TibetAR-geo-stub's a reasonable suggestion, though, as you say, with the redirect kept, it woujld be a fairly moot issue. But if you do want to start nominating changes to the adjectival, go for it - presumably starting with Dominican Republic geography stubs and Dominica geography stubs. Grutness...wha?  00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

turkmen-bio-stub

 * 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

Incorrectly named redirect to a generic stub for Turkmenistan and I created the Turkmenistan-bio-stub just before discovering this redirect. It was used on 2 articles only but these have been sorted to the correct name and prior to proposing this for deletion had no links to it at all. At the very least it should be a reirect of the bio stub, but I think it should be deleted as it is redundent. Waacstats 08:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It will also lessen the risk of confusion with the Iraqi Turkmen. Valentinian T / C 10:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Grutness...wha?  12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Jilin-geo-stub, Template:Liaoning-geo-stub, Template:Heilongjiang-geo-stub (debatable: need to be improved or delete if no compromise are found)

 * 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

Those three templates can NOT be considered directly as a subcategory of the Category:Northeast China geography stubs those provinces were created long time before the artificial Chinese macro-region of Northeast China (having only a political-socio-economical aspect). Northeast China become famous since the controversial Northeast China Project. On the other side, Manchuria (see Category:Manchuria) has a historical and cultural aspect, and the term Manchuria although being considered as an offense by some Chinese peoples remain widely used by Western countries. If a such unmodified template exist, what about the case of Tibet and Southwest China or Xinjiang and Northwestern China or Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and North China? The concept of Northeast China, Southwest China, Northwestern China, North China, Western China are intangible and loosely defined concept, for administrative and governmental purposes, by the governmental bureaus of People Republic of China. Whlee 08:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. These are completely in line with stub-sorting practice. By standard stub-sorting practice, the next step down from national-level geo-stubs is whatever the official first-level administrative division of the country. In the case of the PRC, this is the 22 provinces (we'll ignore whether that number should be 23 for now), plus the 10 other divisions at the same level, as listed at Province (China). Also for the purposes of stub-sorting, such templates are often grouped into larger subnational regions due to the relatively low number of stubs using each template. Thus, for example, geo-stubs for the United States were, at one time, grouped into Midwest, West, Southeast and Northeast categories, with individual templates for all 50 states and the one district. That is the current situation with PRChina's geo-stubs. In time, as the number of stubs increases, more of these provinces will reach the required threshold for their own categories, but at present there are too few for that, so the stubs are listed according to the larger regions. This is the reason why Fujian-geo-stub, Jiangsu-geo-stub, Jiangxi-geo-stub, Shandong-geo-stub, Shanghai-geo-stub, Anhui-geo-stub*, Zhejiang-geo-stub*, HongKong-geo-stub*, Macau-geo-stub*, Beijing-geo-stub, Hebei-geo-stub, InnerMongolia-geo-stub, Shanxi-geo-stub, Tianjin-geo-stub, Heilongjiang-geo-stub, Jilin-geo-stub, Liaoning-geo-stub, Gansu-geo-stub, Xinjiang-geo-stub*, Ningxia-geo-stub, Qinghai-geo-stub, Shaanxi-geo-stub, Chongqing-geo-stub, Tibet-geo-stub*, Guizhou-geo-stub, Sichuan-geo-stub, Yunnan-geo-stub, Guangxi-geo-stub, Hainan-geo-stub, Henan-geo-stub, Guangdong-geo-stub*, Hubei-geo-stub, and Hunan-geo-stub all exist. You will note that includes several of the ones you argue should also exist above.At the moment, only those marked with an asterisk have enough stubs for their own categories - the rest are upmerged into larger regions. If anything connected with the Chinese geo-stubs needs deletion, first choice would be Macau's category, since it has far too few stubs but - as one of the two "Special regions" it has other reasons for being split off. Grutness...wha?  11:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Grutness's points. "Manchuria" is much more ambiguous, and is likely to be a lot more "controversial" to boot.  "Northeast China" might be fairly meaningless as a political unit, but it has a convenient and clear definition, and it doesn't seem to offend many sensibilities (obviously with at least one exception).  Deletion would be quite bizarre, and just be counter-productive to sorting efforts, throwing articles back into the previously-oversized parent, and what's worse causing "why is this province a redlink?" doubletakes when anyone tries to sort to these in future.  (I note that none of these templates are actually tagged for deletion, btw.  And isn't it actually the category you wanted to nominated.)  Alai 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno how can i formulate that exatcly.
 * Jilin template need to be categorized as belonging to Manchuria AND Northeast China (if that entity really exist, that entity is considered as a PRC region according to their ideology). Same comment for Liaoning and Heilongjiang.
 * In addition to that the case of Henan illustrate us how this system is quite intagible. Henan province belong to South Central China but is located on the North China Plain (see also Northern and southern China)Whlee 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't we just finesse whatever concern is at work here (I confess I'm still largely in the dark) with a wording change on the category page? Something like, "also known as the Chinese portion of Manchuria"?  Attempting to second-guess how the regions should be delineated and named seems an unhelpful avenue of approach.  Alternatively, take the Polbit solution, and flood the upmerged categories with so many articles the provinces all get split out into their own categories. :/  Alai 17:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Grutness's points, there is a precedent for naming geography stubs as such. Ne ra n e i   (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing note: These templates are clearly to be kept. However, if there is still a wording dispute, please take that up on the template/category talk pages. ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.