Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/2

singer-guitarist-stub → BOTH Singer-stub and Guitarist-stub / Category:Singer-guitarist stubs

 * 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

In this CfD discussion, we deleted all hyphenated "singer-(instrumentalist)" categories. This stub thus seems like it serves to join two concepts that should be unjoined, and if so, the category should be deleted as were its brethren.--Mike Selinker 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The stub was created primarily as a way of helping to split the overlarge stub category . That category is just barely overlarge now and likely could be resorted down to an acceptable size, using country specific templates instead even with these 131 stubs being tossed back to the parents. Weak support so long as we have actual editors rather than a bot to do it. Caerwine Caer’s whines  05:40, 2 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.

China-geo-stub → (something more precise); (possible deletion)

 * 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/rescope to PRC-x-stub; delete Mainland China


 * (Added China-struct-stub,, and  to the discussion.) Caerwine Caer’s whines  02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that part of the problem with a number of the stub types relating to "China" is the template names: China can denote the historical entity; PRC (including annexations) and RoC collectively; just the PRC, or even just mainland China, it's alleged. While the broadest definition might make sense in historical contexts, for most purposes we seem to be going with modern day countries (or what some people would prefer were the modern day countries). So I suggest we do one of two things: a)  scope the stubs as the People's Republic, rename the stub templates to PRC-geo-stub, etc, and delete the "Mainland" category;  or b) scope the stubs as the Mainland, rename to MainlandChina-geo-stub, and create corresponding "X of/in [Mm]ainland China" permcats. On the basis that several of the last have already been deleted in the past ("controversially", according to some sources), and there seems no great enthusiasm to recreate them, and also on the presumption that we scope geography, buildings, people etc on the basis of present-day boundaries of present-day sovereign states, my inclination is towards the former. However, my much stronger preference is for something consistent either way, and what I'd very much like to see is an end to edit-warring on these and other such issues, so I'm mainly hoping for a clear-cut outcome either way. Alai 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me first quote something very relevant from Naming conventions (Chinese): "Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term 'China' to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word 'China' (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)" Since we do geography stubs on the basis of current political boundaries, then by the naming conventions we have a mismatch and something must be done, as neither People's Republic of China nor Mainland China is appropriate for the existing templates. No strong feelings about whether to use PRC or MainlandChina, but plain China should be used only when both the PRC and the ROC are being covered and/or the period before the current de facto partition is included. Caerwine Caer’s whines  02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well technically, template names aren't within the scope of NCs, but as to their spirit, I agree. I'm a bit surprised if you can't generate at least a mild preference for scoping consistency between permcats and stubcats, though (as I say above, in either direction:  either "following" or "leading").  Alai 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's all the "China-*-stub" templates I could find: Note I haven't looked at these, much less tagged them: feel free to wade in, all. Alai 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * China-actor-stub
 * China-band-stub
 * China-bio-stub
 * China-company-stub
 * China-film-stub
 * China-hist-stub
 * China-mil-bio-stub
 * China-mil-stub
 * China-music-stub
 * China-musician-stub
 * China-org-stub
 * China-painter-stub
 * China-politician-stub
 * China-royal-stub
 * China-singer-stub
 * China-sport-bio-stub
 * China-struct-stub
 * China-stub
 * China-tv-stub
 * China-writer-stub


 * Already added struct above. The rest of these, I'm ok with the rest of these China-*-stub so long as the corresponding cats are scoped appropriately. Caerwine Caer’s whines  04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Wasn't this dealt with three month ago?
 * stub types should at least pretend to be something people can remember off-hand. China is China whether it includes Taiwan or not and China is the recognized common name for the PRC.  Nobody, not even the most ardent KMT diehard denies that.  Yes, Taiwan/ROC stubs should be in a different stub-sorting mechanism. That has no bearing at all on China/PRC stub-sorting.
 * Yes, these should mate to the more permanent categories. Any subdivision of China, or sub-topic, with enough stubs to make a valid sub-container should make one. Just glancing at them current, I'd suggest Guangzhou and Shanghai could probably make a dent in the huge collection of generic stubs here.
 * No, we should not have categories named Mainland China - anymoreso than we have categories for Mainland Finland, English Canada, or Metropolitan France. SchmuckyTheCat 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - China-geo-stub is fine. The proposals for replacement stubs are not necessary.  Please remove the "stub for deletion" tag, thank you.  Badagnani 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the naming conventions, if the template is kept as China-geo-stub then the category needs to be renamed to with  being made a child category. I will agree on the basis of the earlier discussion back in December that we should probably not use Mainland China and the choice is whether to have a distinct PRC level in the geography stubs or not. Caerwine Caer’s whines  17:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (and "vote") A similar situation exists with Congo, with the exception of the fact that one Congo doesn't claim the other as part of its territory. The solution there is to have DRCongo-X-stub and RCongo-X-stub. A similar situation here would be to have PRChina-X-stub and ROChina-X-stub, which I would favour. I would also like to see taiwan-X-stub types kept as redirects. Note that in several cases, notably the hist-stub, keeping "China" makes sense, since many of the stubs refer to both ROC and PRC. In those cases, redirects from ROChina-X- and PRChina-X seem reasonable. Grutness...wha?  23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PRC is a pretty standard abbreviation. A redirect either way might be a sensible step.  Alai 03:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * re: the tagging in of the struct types: note that  has already been edit-warred and speedied into extinction.  I removed a speedy tag from China-geo-stub in taking the discussion here, but neglected to check for similar actions elsewehere.  (More potential fodder for DRV, I suppose.)  Alai 03:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should not have deleted, since, as you have stated for China-geo-stub, it's not eligible for speedy. It was emptied without any discussion before hand. &mdash; Instantnood 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was it deleted? - Privacy 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's not easy to address several matters in one go - it would have been better not to deal with so many matters in one single SFD discussion. First, some of these stub types were created for China in general. Such stub types include, e.g., -bio-, -hist-, -music-. The reasons was that many of such stub articles are related to topics predate or are not relevent to the establishment of the PRC. Some of these topics are about, say, people who moved from the mainland to Taiwan following the war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Second, while it is better to have properly named templates, I am convinced that since names of the templates would not be shown in articles, it is not as necessary for templates to be named as properly as articles and categories. Third, if we are to follow present-day boundaries, the rule still applies to support creation of stub categories for mainland China. Companies, for example, are set up according to laws of the legal jurisdictions where they are registered. Films share a similar situation, since cinema of Hong Kong (and cinema of Taiwan too) have their own histories and paths of development. Fourth, as long as perm categories are concerned, user:Alai said there is no active effort to keep the perm cats for mainland China. She/he seems to have disregarded their fact that many of mainland China perm cats were emptied and speedied instead of provided by discussion and consensus. There's no way to create any new perm categories for mainland China, or recreate the old ones, since they will almost always be emptied or speedied soon after their creations.  Fifth, user:SchmuckyTheCat said we don't have categories for English Canada and Metropolitan France. The fact is that few if not no sovereign states are,  with respect to its special territories, organised like the PRC. The United Kingdom does not consider Bermuda, Gibraltar, etc. to be part of the UK, whereas the status of the départements d'outre-mer (overseas departments) of France are just the same of the départements in Europe. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are not part of the Netherlands, but they are together with the Netherlands three constituent parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The equivalence of "United Kingdom" and "Netherlands" in the case of the PRC is "mainland China".  The outcome of the discusion made in December 2006 was to create PRC stub cats as umbrella of the mainland China, Hong Kong and (when created) Macao stub cats in the case of -geo- and -struct-. The decision goes in line with Wikipdia:naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, which provides that "China" should not be used in place of "mainland China". &mdash; Instantnood 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all categories for mainland Chinese stubs. Michael G. Davis 04:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the category. Keep the template as a redirect if it is renamed. - Privacy 07:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The category for mainland China stubs should be kept. Passer-by 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And why should I not be surprised that it has to be the three users above? Wikipedia is not a democracy. Explain your votes.--Huaiwei 11:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Come on, let's not play politics with a freakin template name... china-xxxxx is something that is easy to remember. The whole rationale for renaming is bunk. People who do stub sorting don't need this kind of mess. 66.131.72.159 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; Instantnood 18:17, 5 April 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.

China-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 '''no clear consensus, defaulting to keep. Per the Chinese naming convention, scope China inclusively'''

Same issue as above. Permanent parent category for the China type is Category: Universities in the People's Republic of China and there is no Category: Universities in China. Taiwan has a undersized but separate stub type. If kept as is, the scope needs to expand to include the institutions in the Republic of China as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename templates, and either rename categories, or upmerge on size, don't much mind which. For extra credit, resolve the "and college(s)" inconsistency (to whichever is allegedly conventional).  (To wit,  vs. the others mentioned.)  Alai 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we have category:Fooian university stubs or category:Fooian university and college stubs? &mdash; Instantnood 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This stub type applies only to universities and other tertiary institutions in mainland China. (Several months ago I found one or two universities in Taiwan were mistagged, but that had been fixed.) Meanwhile, a perm cat for universities in mainland China was created as a result of a recent CFD concluded in January 2007. If perm cat is a basis for stub cat to follow, the category for this stub type should follow accordingly. I don't have much opinion towards the name of the stub template. It doesn't appear in the articles anyway. &mdash; Instantnood 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless rename as Category:Mainland China universities stubs. Mainland China is strictly speaking not the same as China. Michael G. Davis 05:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and adjust perm cats But Mainland China is part of China. Stub types don't have to be overly precise, especially when it would lead to undersized stub types as in this case.  There are not, and likely will never be enough stub articles for a Macau-university-stub or a HongKong-university-stub, and even Taiwan-university-stub looks doubtful.  I don't see the need for a Mainland China stub type here, regardless of one's views on the desirability of such categories in general.  Given that some of the institutions were founded before even the 1911 Revolution, and the small size, I've concluded that it would be best to merge this to a single stub type covering all institutions of higher learning in China, regardless of exactly when or where they exist, with Taiwan-university-stub either upmerged to this or placed as a subtype. Caerwine Caer’s whines  05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be much different in terms of number of stubs to cover institutions in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. It currently covers only mainland China, it isn't undersized. There isn't any cross-boundary stub types except for continents. Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan were already separated politically before the 1911 Revolution. The 1911 Revolution wasn't a watershed. Michael G. Davis 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep. The scope should be better defined to tell what it is about. - Privacy 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have briefly glance through the titles. They are all universities in mainland China. Keep and define its scope as per what it is already about. Passer-by 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the same list, and I agree they are all universities in China, as well as the People's Republic of China. Either expand China-university-stub into a stub cat for both Chinas, or rename it as People's Republic of China-university-stub.--Huaiwei 11:56, 8 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.