Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/23

USN, US Navy, or US navy?

 * 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 standardise to US-navy-, keeping USN- redirects

We have just acquired a USN-bio-stub. Trouble is, we've had US-navy-bio-stub for quite some time, and it's quite heavily populated. We clearly don't need both...but which one should be deleted? Or should both make way to a US-Navy-bio-stub? My own thought is that US-navy-bio-stub is better, since it doesn't automatically imply The United States Navy and can be used for other American naval biographies, such as those members of the Confederate Navy of the 1860s, or for American maritime military personnel otherwise not in the USN. However, the wording of that template suggests otherwise - that it is only for USN personnel. In any case, I don't know the lie of the land as well as some others here, so I'm open to suggestions. Any preferences? Grutness...wha?  03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We also have a USN-stub but no US-navy-stub. (I've added the former to this discussion and tagged it.)  Suggest that since these are both descendants of navy-stub that we keep US-navy- versions as the base stubs and retain as redirects the USN- versions to match the USAF- USCG- and USMC- stubs. (If it weren't for the dreadful ambiguity I'd also support USA- redirects for the US-army- stubs as well.)  There are too few notable CSN personnel that weren't also in the USN and the USN officially includes the Continental Navy it its history, so neither really affects stub sorting.  The USCG- stubs covers most of what other US military naval power there has been as the State naval militias have never amounted to much, even when they were loyal colonies of the United Kingdom. Caerwine Caer’s whines  03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you disapproved of the usage "United Kingdom of Great Britain"? :) Alai 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If one needs to distinguish the 1707-1800 realm from the 1801-1922 or the present version, then United Kingdom's not the best choice, but that distinction is superfluous to this discussion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per both of you, keep US-navy-bio-stub, redirect USN-bio-stub to it, move USN-bio-stub to US-navy-bio-stub, without retagging or deletion of redirect. Or for added nuance, keep both as separate templates feeding into the same category, and finesse the wording (United states naval, vs. United States Navy.)  Clarify the scope of the category to be the more inclusive reading.  Alai 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I got a bit confused there - or you did, one or the other. when you say "move USN-bio-stub to US-navy-bio-stub, without retagging or deletion of redirect" are you actually referring to USN-stub and US-navy-stub? Grutness...wha?  04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, looks like over-enthusiastic use of cut'n'paste, actual or mental. Yes.  Alai 15:52, 28 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.