Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/18


 * 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 as UK, attempt to standardise (one way or other)

Original proposal goes with, which is consistent with other categories. Delete. Monni 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per innumerable past arguments about this, and please don't empty categories prior to consideration here. Alai 07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and thus rename back to this name, deleting, which I've just tagged for such. Alai 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose renaming back ;) Care to put out links to "innumerable" past arguments and guidelines to support those arguments. Monni 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, there are no actual guidelines either way. Frequently, SFRs on the topic end up as no consensus, so linking you to those will just give you permutations of the views in this debate, by and large.  Given the lack of clear consensus, the de facto situation is in effect "he who strikes first" (though I've on occasion modified this when several related stubs already had "the other" pattern).  To recap the issues:  these are fed from templates called "UK-":  matching the categories seems to follow the principle of least cognitive dissonance (or in extreme cases, double-take:  "blah is from the UK, but who said she was British?").  Ambiguity and scoping issues, as I discuss more below.  "Stub grammar":  we have permcats of the form "Xs in/of/from the United Kingdom", and permcats of the form "British Xs";  if we map the former to "United Kingdom X stubs", and the latter to "British X stubs", we introduce pointless inconsistency between the two, when we're not even retaining the strict form of the original category.  (And if we make them all "British X stubs", we're importing the linguistic imprecision beyond where even the permcatters did;  if we called them "X of the United Kingdom stubs", or "Stubs of X of the United Kingdom", we're recreationally torturing an innocent^W^W the language.)  Likewise throughout for "US-"/"American" stub types.  Alai 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep United Kingdom, delete British. This category is meant to include Northern Ireland guitarists, who are technically not British, alongside their English, Welsh, and Scottish counterparts. Grutness...wha?  12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Wouldn't it be better to rename/rescope the parent and siblings then to reflect the wider scope? I thought one one the important things in sorting is to keep things unambiguous and consistent... Monni 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a look at UK-bio-stub and its cat is . And the rest of the children are an absolute mixup of United Kingdom and British.  Ugh.  Also, I thought that if it was meant only for England, we went with something like England-xxxx-stub and English xxxxx stubs.  ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Britain=England+Wales+Scotland, UK=England+Wales+Scotland+N.I., British=completely ambiguous between the two (and more besides), hence its being a disambig. The scope of "England-" types is perfectly clear, it's just a bit pointless to create them in many cases, if "sorting" to them would move 90% of the "UK-" membership to therein.  Alai 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I really think we should "rename" all UK stub categories starting either British or United Kingdom (but not mixed). As the templates are UK-..., I'm open for both choices. I know it's sh*tty job but that's what I've been thinking since I noticed unconsistency in American (continent) categories. Monni 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of making them fully consistent. I wouldn't want to do it all at once for the sakes of the job queue, but there's "only" about 20 stub categories affected.  Including one that's not even biographical, .  And not counting, and the like. :)  Alai 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We really, really, really need to decide on one or the other, because this is getting way out of hand. For this, and for United States/American. It just isn't consistent at all. (I have no preference.) Crystallina 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The UK/British and US/American issue is one that should be dealt with by the general category naming conventions and for better or worse they call for using "British" and "American" for biographies following the example set by the base category for people of that country located in .  It really reinforces the perceptions some editors have of us stub sorters as self-absorbed elitist when we don't follow the standard conventions simply because some of us don't like them. It's only a few hyper-correct types (which stub sorting seems to attract because of the same impulse towards order) who get upset by the idea of having the Northern Irish counted as British. Caerwine Caer’s whines  05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ... or the majority of the population of the Americas not being counted as "American", small details like that. I'll go off and create, shall I?  Alai 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the word "correct" has a Latin etymology, please only add me to the category if it's named ;) As to only a few hyper-correct types getting upset at calling people from Northern Ireland british, I suggest you ask a few people on the Falls Road about whether they consider themselves British (be sure to book yourself an ambulance first). But yes, this probably should be sorted out for permcats first, and we should follow what they do where that is possible. Grutness...wha?  06:56, 24 January 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.

Lethbridge-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 upmerge

Far, farv too specific a topic for a stub type. There is nothing here which couldn't be served by the various Ontario categories that exist. No wikiproject, only eleven stubs, and, of course, no proposal. Delete. Grutness...wha?  05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I apologise for overlooking the requirement of proposing the stub. As well, Lethbridge is in Alberta, not Ontario. Further, the Lethbridge stub has more pages (now more than eleven; I was able to do only a portion yesterday) than the Calgary stub. Granted, far less than say Toronto. FWIW. --Kmsiever 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops - apologies for the geographical faux pas! Still, a stub type should have at least 60 current articles that can be categorised with it before it's created. Grutness...wha?  23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not supposed to have a Calgary-stub either, for much the same reason. Upmerge both, until of a sufficient size.  Though wouldn't splitting Alberta by county/municipal district be better in the long run anyway?  Alai 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really; Alberta's cities are not part of any county or MD. --Kmsiever 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. I need a by-country local-government ready-reckoner for occasions like this.  OK, given how fine-grained cities/counties/municipal districts seem to me, what about splitting by region (i.e. in this case, Southern Alberta, and upmerging this template there?  Alai 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a good idea. A few of us just spent some time creating the regional articles. Keep in mind, however, that Calgary and Edmonton are their own regions. --Kmsiever 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did notice that; not all of the regions will necessarily themselves be immediable over threshold, but at least it's more likely than the lower level.  Alai 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fair compromise.The main point of my nominating this is that it's simply not a very good idea splitting off individual cities except for very large, obviously-over-threshold cases, since we'd end up with eight or nine city-specific categories plus a grab-bag "everywhere else" category for every province, which wouldn't help anyone. Grutness...wha?  12:44, 19 January 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.