Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/April/23

Various MP categories

 * 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The result of the debate was Withdrawn, but this will still need some form of looking at later Grutness...wha? 

The recent unproposed creation of England-MP-stub has led to me realisingg what a mess we've got in the various Member of Parliament stub categories. We currently have the following:
 * England-MP-stub/, for pre-1707 union English Members of Parliament
 * Scotland-MP-stub/, for all Scottish Members of Parliament, pre-1707 and later
 * GreatBritain-MP-stub/ (what it says on the can)
 * UK-MP-stub/ (for everyone post-1801 union)
 * UK-current-MP-stub/
 * (no template)/ (parent category for all the above)

plus party-specific types:
 * Conservative-Scotland-MP-stub/
 * Liberal-UK-MP-stub/, which despite the name is for both Liberal and Lib-Dem MPs
 * Labour-UK-MP-stub/
 * Conservative-UK-MP-stub/

This is, to put it bluntly, a mess. At the very least, the term "MP" needs to be expanded to "Member of Parliament" in all of the category names, per stub naming conventions; ditto the term "UK". As for the others, I'd suggest the following:


 * to replace the "England MP stubs" category, possibly also creating as an overarching parent for all pre and post 1707 English MPs
 * Splitting the Scottish one into and, keeping the current one as a parent - gthe exact template names will need to be decided
 * Renaming the UK one to - I realise this is a tautology, since the UK only came into existence in 1801, but for the sake of clarity it might be useful
 * Changing the name of the Liberal category and creating a LibDem-UK-MP-stub redirect to acknowledge its actual usage.

I'd actually coinsider going one stage further and having a separate category for Welsh MPs as well - they may not have had a separate parliament, but if Scottish MPs post 1707 are categorised as Scottish, it would make sense for fairness' sake.

I realise this may need splitting up into separate sfds or sfd sections, but putting it in one section will at least hopefully generate some debate on the subject. Grutness...wha?  01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (on St George's day, too...)
 * I can't say that I see the utility of the party stubs save as a way to split an overlarge stub category and the more usual split by century or decade of birth should solve that problem. I sincerely doubt that there will be many editors interested in only the MP's of one party.  Scotland-UK-MP-stub and the other Home Nation MP stubs might also be worth having to avoid having to double stub with Scotland-politician-stub and also maybe avoid the DOB split. Caerwine Caer’s whines  02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, there's a lot of things here that might well benefit from separation.
 * First point, though, is an important one. Any categorisation or stub system in this field has to accommodate the fact that there are no less than five different parliaments involved (Scotland, Ireland, England, GB, UK, plus of course the 1999-onwards Scottish Parliament), five different nations/provinces (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, N. Ireland) and a complex collection of parties which have merged, split, changed names etc, and often straddle different countries and difft parliaments (consider the tangled history of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. The permanent categs in this area are complex and plentiful, and have been developed over the last few years into a stable and coherent whole to accommodate over 5,000 individual articles.
 * The next thing is to remember that the stub categories are not intended as a permanent feature, but rather as a (hopefully transient) means way of identifying articles in need of expansion. They need to be reasonably accurate and to avoid mislabelling articles, but they also need to avoid unnecessary visual clutter. Some of the permanent category names in this field are necessarily huge (e.g., and adding a proliferation of huge long stub-category names creates a verbosity which reduces the useability of the categories. In this area, stub category names should be brief, regardless of what the guidelines say about other circumstances.
 * The same goes for the names of stub templates. Complex and unwieldy template names are much harder for editors to remember and to use accurately, and the verbose they become the more likely it is that editors use the wrong ones or simply don't bother applying them.
 * Overall, I am very concerned that some of the proposals here appear to be designed more to fit a set of generalised guidelines than to help maintain a useable set of stub templates which do not overwhelm the articles (guidelines are not a straitjacket, and should not be used as such). I strongly disagree with the premise that the existing setup is a mess: some small tweaks may be needed, but in general it works very well.
 * Now onto some of the specifics.
 * I very strongly oppose expanding the abbreviation MP in these stub categories. MPs tend to be in a lot of categories, and expanding "MP" to "Member of Parliament" only increases the bulk of the category listing. It's unnecessary, because all MPs are already in a category which does expand the abbreviation (such as ) ... and the abbreviation "MP" is already used for the party categories (e.g., , ) and for the MPs-by-Parliament categories (e.g. or . Please look at the categorisation of some individual MPs to see how expanding the stub categories would cause unnecessary and disruptive category clutter.
 * The same applies equally strongly to the abbreviation UK: it is already used in many of the parent (non-stub) categories, and expanding it simply adds bulk. I know what the stub-naming conventions say, but they are conventions rather than biblical commandments, and should be applied with usual discretion reserved for conventions and guidelines. Their rigid application in this case would be disruptive to both editors and readers by adding hugely to the visual bulk and clutter of already bulky category lists. In any case, UK redirects to United Kingdom, because it is overwhelmingly the most common use of that abbreviation.
 * On the other points:
 * A separate categ for Welsh MPs would be a good idea
 * Oppose changing the name of the Liberal category. If it is being misused for LibDem MPs, then let's created a separate LibDem-UK-MP-stub rather than creating a hybrid category which would need to be parented in both and . However a quick check using catscan identifies no such misuse: all the 3 MPs in the intersect were Liberal Party (UK) MPs before later becoming LibDems
 * Oppose renaming UK-MP-stub to Template:Post-1801 United Kingdom Member of Parliament stubs. That's disruptive verbosity which would be a pain-in-the neck to use, and it's unnecessary because the text displayed by the template makes its purpose abundantly clear, and text on the template itself provides further explanation
 * Splitting the Scottish one into and  may in principle be useful, but should be considered separately in discussion with Scottish editors. However, if a split is being made it seems arbitrary to split only at 1707 rather than also at 1801
 * is a strange choice of name, because the issue here is not that the MPs was pre-1707, but that they were a member of the pre-1707 Parliament of England rather than its successor Parliaments. If a separate stub category is created for that period, it also needs to avoid the adjective "English", because from the mid-16th century the Parliament of England included Welsh MPs
 * Finally, this all arises from one ambiguously-named stub template, England-MP-stub. I suggest that rather than trying to rebuild everything in response to that, it would be much better to simply rename that one ambiguous stub template and category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I started writing the above before Caerwine posted, and reposted mine after an editconflict. However, I really really wish that we didn't have to consider proposals like a split by century or decade of birth. MPs are already categorised by party and by nation, which are the main ways of looking at parliament, and stub categories should follow that logic rather try to impose yet another dimension onto an already complex multi-dimensional jigsaw. At any given point in history the MPs will span 40 or 50 years in age, so age is not a useful way of looking at Parliament.
 * I also strongly disagree with Caerwine's suggestion that editors are unlikely to be interested in MPs of only one party. Party affiliations in the UK are much much more rigid and defining than in the USA, and editors from the United States should not presume that UK politics follows a similar model to US politics; the differences are very significant, particularly in the rigidity of UK political parties, at least from the mid-19th century onwards, and Westminster MPs are controlled by their parties to an extent unimagineable in the US Congress. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Two replies so far, and there seem to be several misperceptions of what I've suggested. Still, debate is important...

Caerwine - the stub types for the different parties already exist. I agree that a by-decade method seems on some level be more sensible, and think I mentioned that at the time of their creation. As BHG points out, though, some editors are more likely to edit articles relating to one party, so they do make sense. I am not suggesting any change in those categories other than in their naming.

BHG - I am not advocating any change whatsoever in the "-UK-" or "-MP-" names of the templates - the current names are, with the exception of the ambiguous ones - perfectly in line with stub naming conventions. With the exception of the ambiguous "England-" and "Scotland-" templates, only concerned with the renaming of the categories, which is why the majority of the templates have not been marked with sfd templates.

To answer your separate points more thoroughly (this may take some time...):
 * Any categorisation or stub system in this field has to accommodate the fact that there are no less than five different parliaments involved. The permanent categs in this area are complex and plentiful

I realise this - all I am suggesting is some sort of mapping of the one onto the other, and some sort of consistent naming - having one category for "England MPs" and another for "Scottish MPs" indicates the confusion in the naming, and the vastly different scopes of those two categories compounds the problems.
 * Overall, I am very concerned that some of the proposals here appear to be designed more to fit a set of generalised guidelines than to help maintain a useable set of stub templates which do not overwhelm the articles

I am not advocating changing the templates except in those two cases where naming is ambiguous. Most of the template names are perfectly OK - the categoriy names, however, are not.
 * I very strongly oppose expanding the abbreviation MP in these stub categories. Expanding "MP" to "Member of Parliament" only increases the bulk of the category listing.

I can understand that, and was not aware that the permcat names were similarly abbreviated - this must be a rare exception in the Wikipedia rules regarding abbreviations in category names. The same applies with UK, which is unambiguous enough for us to use it regularly in stub templates, though it is (other than in this instance) always expanded to its full length in stub category names. If there is no problem with these names in the permcats, then I'm reasonably happy to leave them the same in the stubcats.
 * Oppose changing the name of the Liberal category.

Fair enough, and I agree that a separate template would be a better idea. The random sample I took in that category must have by chance picked two of those three intersects!
 * Oppose renaming UK-MP-stub to Template:Post-1801 United Kingdom Member of Parliament stubs

No-one has suggested doing so, and I agree, that would be an appalling template name, and strongly against stub naming conventions. What I have suggested is changing the category name to this.
 * Splitting the Scottish one into and  may in principle be useful, but should be considered separately in discussion with Scottish editors. However, if a split is being made it seems arbitrary to split only at 1707 rather than also at 1801

How is it arbitrary? Scotland had a separate parliament prior to 1707, so the change at this point is fundamental.Similarly, if an equivalent Irish category needed splitting, 1801 would be the logical point at which to split it. Given that, I would have no objection to a proposed three-way split (pre-1707, 1707-1800, post-1801).
 *  is a strange choice of name, because the issue here is not that the MPs was pre-1707, but that they were a member of the pre-1707 Parliament of England rather than its successor Parliaments. If a separate stub category is created for that period, it also needs to avoid the adjective "English", because from the mid-16th century the Parliament of England included Welsh MPs

I realise that, hence my comments about a separate Welsh category. Despite this, the name of the parliament was the Parliament of England, and as such, it is the most sensible name that I can think of offfhand. Any better suggestions are welcome.
 * Finally, this all arises from one ambiguously-named stub template, England-MP-stub. I suggest that rather than trying to rebuild everything in response to that, it would be much better to simply rename that one ambiguous stub template and category.

It does arise because of one stub template, yes - but that template showed how confused other parts of the same system were. What I am suggesting is rebuilding the one template, but at the same time fixing the other problems which it has highlighted. Grutness...wha?  07:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I created England-MP-stub and, for pre-1707 union members of the Parliament of England, simply because I discovered that quite a number of such pre-1707 members had been wrongly tagged with GreatBritain-MP-stub or with UK-MP-stub. Just look at the text those other templates generate to see how useless they are for the articles concerned. The name was chosen on the pattern of the existing stubs and clearly is on that pattern. With all due respect to the Welsh, Wales was not a separate kingdom and was always represented in the Parliament of England. I tend to agree that English-MP-stub could mislead and confuse, but what matters more than the name is the text the template gives us, and what's said by England-MP-stub refers unambiguously to the Parliament of England. If the Welsh are being ultra sensitive, then no doubt that short text could mention them, but that doesn't seem to need discussion here.


 * I find the proposal to delete this new template really quite comical. So long as there is no stub which can properly be used for the pre-1707 members, it serves a useful purpose, especially if editors are starting to use unsuitable stubs because they don't know what to use. If someone can find a better name for England-MP-stub, then that's good, but we surely don't need long and complicated names for stubs, good practice is 'the simpler the better'. Indeed, perhaps E-MP-stub would be an improvement and would also sound less non-Welsh. Xn4  14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion? The proposal is to change the name, not to delete. The name may have been chosen on an existing pattern, but without reference to the convention that the pattern must allow for possible confusion and provide an unambiguous name for the template, and provide a category name that is as much as possible in line with the permanent category name. Given that England-MP-stub covers an area of history which is not analogous to that covered by Scotland-MP-stub, it is highly logical to suggest that one or the other, or possibly both, need to be changed. Similarly, having two categories t5itled "England X" and "Scottish X" shows a cleear lack of consistency which needs to be addressed. Oh, and E-MP-stub would be fine if it was a stub type for electro-magnetic pulses, but this isn't for that subject. Grutness...wha?  01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The note you left on my talk page refers to deletion, Grutness, and you started the present thread on this page, which (even if you haven't noticed) is called Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Xn4  11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Double-sigh. The first sentence on this page makes it clear that it is for matters relating to the deletion or renaming of stub types. Similarly, the note I left on your page said thaty it had been "nominated for deletion or renaming". This is the correct forum for a renaming of a stub template, since any such renaming is likely to entail the deletion of the original name. Grutness...wha?  01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that this discussion should be closed? We are going to get lost if we try to discuss so many other issues at the same time, particularly since several of Grutness's orginal points were based on a misunderstanding.
 * I quite agree with the need for a stub category for for pre-1707 union members of the Parliament of England, but I think that Grutness is right to point out that the name may need to be reconsidered for clarity. It would be much clearer to have a separate discussion on whether that template and category should be renamed ... then look separately at the Scottish categories and separately at the Welsh. But trying to discus so many unrelated things together is a recipe for confusion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I noted in my original nomination, this proposal is largely to alert everyone to the problems and to fix what can be fixed quickly in one go. This discussion has cleared up several points and made it far easier to proceed. Grutness...wha?  01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have indeed clarified a lot, but when considering specific proposals, it would be clearer to address them one at a time. So far as I can see, there are three remaining issues on the label, which can now be considered separately. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Grutness...wha?  01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If this useful discussion is to be continued elsewhere, a link from here to there or else another note on my talk page would be much appreciated. Xn4  12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest these categories be renamed for consistency with the other similar stub categories. Articles are likely to have only one such category, so length isn't an issue (even, or perhaps especially, when a particular article has a multitude of "UK MP (date-date)" categories).  Having abbreviations in the category names makes it hard to search for them in the list of categories and causes strange results when sorted alphabetically in the supercategory.  Powers T 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's easy enough to find them in a list, by searching for " MP" (i.e. space-M-P) rather than just "mp" ... and I do think that naming a categ for convenience in a maintenance is a bad choice of priorities.
 * And I'm afraid it's not true that articles are likely to have only one such category. Most MP stub articles should have both a party-stub tag and a country stub tag &mdash; and sometimes more than one of each, because in the 19th century it was quite common for MPs to jump around between difft constituencies, as well as switching parties. Having recently assessed a lot of 19th century Irish MP articles, it was notable that many of them previously or subsequently represented English or Scottish constituencies. Replacing two or three short-named stub categories with huge long categories names will all a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful clutter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's easy enough to search for "MP" once one understands this exception to the general rule, but note that one must search for both "parliament" and "MP" when looking for a new stub category, as one doesn't know whether it's been abbreviated or not. A minor issue when couched in those terms, perhaps, but consistency is important.  Powers T 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see now that there's really only one category that spells out "Parliament", so perhaps my consistency argument is not as strong as I'd thought.  =)  Still, I only stumbled upon UK-MP-stub because it was directly above "Members of the Scottish Parliament stubs"; if I'd found zero "Parliament" results I probably would've been at a loss until I browsed down to "British politician stubs".  Powers T 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency is a good thing, but it's not the only principle to apply in these situations :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -We certainly need somethign like England-MP-stub, ideally GB-MP-stub and UK-MP-stub. If the first is misused for post-1707 English constituencies, it probably does not matter unduly.  These are useful and desirable stub types for an area where WP is currently expanding.  They are more specific than "politician" stubs.  I came to this page as a result of using "England-MP-stub".   In my view, stub type names should be brief and to the point.  Excessive specificity is undesirable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (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.