Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/November/29


 * 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 per nom, with rev of North/West Africa per Grutness

rename from foo to fooian to avoid stub grammer. This relates to and currently at WP:WSS/P. Waacstats (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose. The last one on the list shows he reason why using an adjectival demonym is hazardous. Even when the basic gist of a weird one like that for Burkina Faso is grabbed, it's still very easy to misspell something like Burkinabé (note the accent). Usual stub naming says that if the permcat is "X in Foo" and "X of Foo", the stub category at "Foo X stubs", and it only becomes "Fooian X stubs" when the permcat is at "Fooian X". For that reason, I'd oppose this, though I'm willing to reconsider if you can convince the people at CFD that the permcats should be at "Fooian politican parties". I would support two changes to the above, though:
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * ...per and . Grutness...wha?  20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong support for anything except "Burkina Faso" as normal English language usage. For that one I'd like to see some evidence about what the normal attributive usage actually is.  This nonsense is all a result of a rod for we've made for our own backs by only coming around by inches to the concept that if you're going to scramble the order of the words in a category name, and sticks "stubs" on the end, there are one or two other grammatical considerations that come into play, such as avoiding double plurals, and, well, this.  Alai (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, since we have permcats at and, that seems a perfectly reasonable usage.  Support that one too.  Alai (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be good if we had, but - as I've pointed out elsewhere, permcats often don't use adjectival forms for very good reasons, and we should follow suit in those cases. Creating an artificial "Stubcats use adjectives even when permcats deliberately don't" is far worse than the"Stub Grammar (TM)" idea of us using adjectives when permcats use adjectives and nouns when permcats use nouns. Grutness...wha?  22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "deliberately don't"? I've demonstrated that there's no such systematic avoidance: some use noun phrases, with propositions, others use adjectives attributively.  It is not "following the permcats" to junk the prepositions, but keep the noun phrase as is, regardless of whether that's an idiomatic usage.  That is something that no permcat naming scheme would ever do, so to characterise in that manner is entirely wrong-headed.  I can't think of any much more "artificial" than to have a mixture of "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian" both being used attributively, and nor do I see it as helpful to anyone on the (relatively rare) instances where someone has to remember the actual category: quite the reverse, in fact.  Things have been heading this way for some time, and frankly if you had some deep-seated objection, you really should have spoken up fore now.  Alai (talk) 04:13, 1 December 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.