Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/11

Runningbio-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

Duplicate of athletics-bio-stub that was brought to sfd once before only to suffer a no consensus result. Now that the track and field athletes have been so throughly subdivided that the stub category is strangely empty despite there being no stub templates for athletes from Mexico (which I suspect have been wrongly tagged with the Central American template), Greenland, or the British Atlantic OT's, let's try deleting this one once again. Caerwine Caer�s whines 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Get rid of it. On the other point, neither Greenland nor the Falklands are well-known for their athletes, but I bet there are a couple of Bermudian ones around somewhere... Grutness...wha?  07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support deleting template although it may be better if there was a rescoping of the categories to specifically state they include all forms of athletics not just track and field. There are numerous people who are notable for road running,  cross country, mountain running or ultra-distance running but not track and field.
 * Regarding your point on certain nations. When i proposed the sub categories it was based on governing bodies (hence Central America and Caribbean being one category) so, Mexico is in Central America and Bermuda in Caribbean as they compete in Central America and Caribbean competitions, wikipedia currently have no athletes from Greenland and the only athletes from British Atlantic OT are the Bermudians, having a quick look through last years world top 200 lists, all time top 50 lists and all time medallists from major competitions at continental level and above I can't see any Greenlanders or non Bermudian BAOT's so i doubt these would be classed as notable. Waacstats 08:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for the original category. Alex43223Talk 03:54, 13 March 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.

/ Taiwan-university-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 to China university stubs

With China-university-stub having been upscoped from the PRC to all of China, this category should be a subcat except that it isn't large enough to be a separate stub category for now. With 26 stubs it's slightly undersized for a new upmerged template, but it already exists. Delete the category and either delete or upmerge the template. Caerwine Caer�s whines 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the template (possible rename to ROC-, if there's any established pattern or guideline on that question) and upmerge, as significantly undersized (unless there's a ROC-uni-WPJ out there someplace). Alai 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most RoC-related templates are at Taiwan-X-stub, with redirects from RoC and ROC, so I'd not be too happy to see a rename. I suspect that you're asking for trouble upmerging them into a category covering both Chinas (perhaps upmerging into Asia-uni... would be easier), but I'm basically not going to say yay or nay to this one, and leave it to others. Grutness...wha?  02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both? Isn't that "all four", according to...  some sources?  We tried and failed to regularise the name, state and scope of the existing China-university-stub /  (to the PRC, that the permcat, and well, country), and aside from the usual suspects parroting "Mainland China!", where did that get us?  Alai 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, or else upmerge to Asia. Passer-by 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the template. Either populate or upmerge the category to the one for Asia university stubs. - Privacy 08:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the template. I agree with Privacy, and I think that China deserves a template, as with the population and number of universities. Alex43223Talk 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Republic of China has a population of 23 million. There are 163 universities and other tertiary institutions. - Privacy 19:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to understand the reasoning behind this nomination. Whether Taiwan is part of China is a matter of some debate, and besides that, we have a WikiProject Taiwan for which these stub templates are quite useful.  --Ideogram 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply As for the category, I nominated it for deletion because this stub type is too small at this time to warrant a separate stub category under this WikiProject's guidelines which call for a minimum of 60 stubs. As for why I proposed upmerging to  instead of, the PRC, the ROC, and Wikipedia's naming conventions all agree that China refers to the combination of the territory controlled de facto by the PRC and the ROC,  though the two governments obviously disagree on which is the de jure government of Taiwan. Caerwine Caer’s whines  00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However it is not quite clear that Taiwan is universally accepted as part of China in the modern sense. By doing so we are going to create more troubles than resolving them. The naming conventions, as I read it, is advising editors not to call "Mainland China" "China". In other words, it is advising editors to substitute "China" with "Mainland China" if the latter is more suitable. It does not ask editors to the other way round and re-scope to extend to cover all China. - Privacy 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the change in opinion from what you said just ten days ago in the SFD for ? There you were clearly informed that if kept as is, the Wikipedia naming conventions for China required that its scope include Taiwan and you said "Obvious keep. The scope should be better defined to tell what it is about."  You cannot have it both ways.  (China ≠ Mainland China) → (Taiwan ⊂ China) Caerwine Caer’s whines  04:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I have changed my opinion. The stub template and the category were surely relevant only with mainland China. In other words, the stub type was about mainland China. Therefore I thought the wordings of the stub template and the category were not clearly defining their scopes. I did not ask to change their scopes. Rather, I asked for keeping the then existing scope, and improving the wordings. - Privacy 08:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was to be relevant to only mainland China then it should have renamed, not kept as is. That fact was clearly pointed out in the nomination for discussion.  You voted keep in a way that suggested that you wanted the text in the template and the category to indicate an expanded scope that include Taiwan.  Given the context of that discussion that certainly is what you said, even if that was not what you had intended. Caerwine Caer’s whines  22:22, 15 March 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.


 * Its scope had always been Mainland China. What we should have to do is to describe the scope more clearly. I voted to keep its scope as it was. I did not vote to expand its scope. - Privacy 20:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)