Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/May/5

Category:United Kingdom artist stubs, Category:United Kingdom photographer stubs, Category:United Kingdom architect 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 too close to call; no consensus & revisit as a naming convention issue when possible

Change "United Kingdom" to "British", to match the parent categories: Category:British artists, Category:British photographers, and Category:British architects. --kingboyk (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Saga City (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, per usual discussions on these things. Over and above arguments for why the permcats really shouldn't use as ambiguous a term as British (and likewise, American), anyway, in the case of stub cats it's especially undesirable.  Firstly, they're fed from "UK-" templates, which mapping onto a "British" category could be seen as a "surprising result".  Secondly, we also map "  the United Kingdom" categories to "United Kingdom stubs", so having some horizontal consistency between stub categories, rather than flipping between one attributive use and another, is strongly preferable.  Alai (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For once, I'm with Alai on this subject. We do map "X of/in the UK" to "UK X stubs" in general, and there are the continual problems as to whether people from Northern Ireland can technically be regarded as "British". Grutness...wha?  01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you want the stub categories to continue violating the naming guidelines that apply to permanent biography categories? I'm sorry but the idea that a sub-entity of Wikipedia should not follow guidelines established for all of Wikipedia strikes me as extremely WP:OWN-ish. I know you think that the naming guideline that applies to the permanent categories is wrong, but the solution to that is not to use a totally antithetical guideline that applies to stub categories, but to seek to change the guideline for the permanent categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines  02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I hadn't noticed that the permcats use "British" - and given that, moving the stubcats to the same would name sense, for the reasons I gave. For some reason I took Alai's comments to mean the were styled "X of the United Kingdom", though come to think of it that would make little sense with these categories. You're right that I think the permcats shouldn't use "British" or "American", but given that they do these should follow suit. Grutness...wha?  08:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that many other permcats use that form, leaving us the issue not so much of "consistency", as "where to leave the inconsistency". Alai (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Observation The underlying problem with all such designations is that the assumpton that an individual's ethnicity and their place of birth are necessarily the same. Was the first Duke of Wellington Irish? Is Prince Philip Greek? Is Ted Dexter Indian? Saga City (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they're British and should be in this category. Really, your comment should be part of a wider debate about country vs "race": my nomination is merely to enforce the existing standards (the status quo if you will) in a handful of misnamed categories from thousands. --kingboyk (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence my support, registered above. Saga City (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "UK" and "British" are both used in the world; therefore keep both. Let's avoid binning identities for convenience.Oneblackline (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we have 3 support, 2 oppose thus far. 19 of the stub categories under use "United Kingdom" and 12 use "British". All the permcats for people from the country in question use "British". So either we (a) go with United Kingdom because that's how we do it in stub-land, or (b) change course and follow the "British" permcats. Can we close this soon? thanks...Her Pegship  (tis herself)  22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite all the permcats in the whole hierarchy (though possibly all that have stub child cats): some of them use a " of the United Kingdom" form, as do the majority of the non-people cats.  So the "stub land" issue is (in part) whether we want to have a mixture of "United Kingdom X stubs" and "British Y stubs" purely due to some similarity to their respective permcats.  However, I don't propose to get too far into re-debating the original issue in the form of debating how to close it, and since I clearly have a dog in this fight, I certainly won't be closing it myself.  Over to you, or possibly to Grutness now he's back to "neutral", or whomsoever eventually swings by thanks to the backlog notice.  Alai (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, not even everything in the people cats with stub types: see  + .  Alai (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really a counter example as the cat covers those who held a bishopric in the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they were of a British nationality or not. St. Augustine of Canterbury, was certainly not British, though he was indisputably a Roman Catholic bishop in the United Kingdom. Caerwine Caer’s whines  18:01, 13 June 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.

Queen-song-stub / Category:Queen (band) song 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

Scope is too limited; only 26 articles in the category. indopug (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This one does have a WikiProject, but even so, it's borderline. Either weak delete or upmerge, though if it can be increased past 30, then its worth keeping. Grutness...wha?  02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But it definitely won't be increased past the number it is now. The articles can only expand (there are plenty of sources), thereby removing them from this category. Since Queen has broken up for a while, not too many new (notable) song articles can be created too. indopug (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Queen's recently joined forces with Paul Rodgers and they're going to publish a new album in August.
 * So? That'll result in about 3 more articles, and its highly likely that with high coverage it'll receive, the articles will quickly become full-fledged articles from stubs. indopug (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it until it's empty. It exists, it has a supporting WikiProject, what is to be gained by deleting it? --kingboyk (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has a supporting WikiProject that has these articles already listed via a talk-page banner, so its loss would be largely irrelevant to them. As to "what's to be gained by deleting it": 1) less work for stub sorters (one less category to monitor); 2) less work for editors (one less category to hunt through while looking for articles to expand); 3) the removal of a potential precedent for undersized stub categories. Grutness...wha?  01:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what happened to "enforc[ing] the existing standards", then? Or would that be just the ineffable standards of wonky outcomes at CFD, rather than actual guidelines?  Alai (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're talking about. Existing standards are observed, they're not written down by some policy wonk. --kingboyk (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Existing standards include the standard of having 30 existing stubs if there is a WikiProject, 60 if there isn't. That standard isn't met (indeed the category has dropped further to just 25 stubs). Grutness...wha?  06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of these 25 aren't even song articles; one is Template:Queen-song-stub and the other is Wikipedia:WikiProject Queen, so there are really only 23 articles here. Further, all of the se atrticles have complete infoboxes, cover art and around two paragraphs of information; so even if they technically can be called stubs, they are high quality stubs. indopug (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we define 'existing standards' as 'that which we happen to observe', clearly kingboyk is on firm grounds here. Otherwise, not so much.  Alai (talk) 11:29, 10 June 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.

New Mexico-geo-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

Spacey redirect, but with several transclusions. Alai (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * almost all of them now cleared Grutness...wha?  01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd have waited for the decision to delete to do that. Alai (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, clearly, per naming standards. Grutness...wha?  02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: please note that NewMexico-geo-stub already exists, to which this is redundant. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 6 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.