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

Euthenasia-stub (sic)

 * 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

Unproposed, unlikely to find much use if any, and misspelled to boot. Even at Euthanasia-stub it would be unlikely to get enough use to warrant a stub type. Oh, and there's no category link of any kind. Delete Grutness...wha?  00:19, 23 September 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.


 * 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 keep as is


 * Moved from WP:CFD. Why don't people read the instructions? Grutness...wha?  23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom film actor stubs to Category:British film actor stubs Per convention. I would have moved it myself, only I no longer seem to be able to move categories - has this privilege been removed from ordinary editors? Setanta747 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal clearly does not qualify for speedy renaming. Please run it through the full, five-day process described at Categories for discussion.  Stepheng3 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep at current name. It does meet the naming conventions of stub categories - most UK people stub types use "United Kingdom", though it's far from uniform (something should be done about this, really). Grutness...wha?  23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it qualifies under criteria No.4 on the Speedy cat page. Secondly, it doesn't meet naming conventions - see Category:Canadian film actor stubs and Category:American film actor stubs. (see also Category:American people stubs Category:American philosopher stubs, Category:American photographer stubs, Category:American poet stubs, Category:American political scientist stubs, Category:American politician stubs, Category:American psychologist stubs, Category:American publisher (people) stubs, Category:American scientist stubs, Category:American screen actor stubs, Category:British MEP stubs, Category:British actor stubs, Category:British comedian stubs, Category:British composer stubs, Category:British diplomat stubs, Category:British drummer stubs, Category:British electronic musician stubs, Category:British explorer stubs, Category:Dutch painter stubs, Category:Dutch people stubs, Category:Dutch politician stubs, Category:Dutch sportspeople stubs, Category:Dutch writer stubs etc...) --Setanta747 (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it doesn't qualify under criterion 4, as the usual way of naming stub categories is using United Kingdom rather than British. It also doesn't qualify as stub categories are not dealt with at CFD, as is clearly stated in the box at the very top of WP:CFD. As far as the actual name is concerned, see also: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;... I could list the US and Netherlands ones as well if you like, as well as the "Canada", "France", "Australia", "Germany", "India", "China", "Burkina Faso" and Lord-knows-where-else ones. I repeat - the majority of stub categories are done this way, as it is the naming convention for them. Grutness...wha?  06:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fourth criteria point sets the convention, and the convention is that individuals are listed by nationality, surely. You have pointed out many categories yourself which highlight that, at the very least, there is no consistency. If we confine it to just film actor stubs, we get Category:Canadian film actor stubs and Category:American film actor stubs. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and if we were going for consistency, then it would make sense to use the predominant type for that consistency, which would mean changing all the others to United Kingdom. Grutness...wha?  22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then you have your work cut out for you I guess. However, it states in Naming conventions (categories), "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians" and in Naming conventions (categories) it states, "All categories whose subcategories are categories by nationality (roughly all categories that are members of Category:Categories by nationality) shall have a per-category naming convention which will apply to all of their subcategories. These naming conventions, their guidelines and their exceptions are listed here. Non-conformance to these naming conventions shall be treated as a criterion for "speedy category renaming" as defined on WP:CFD. Changing these conventions shall require a consensual discussion either directly at WP:CFD or publicized there.]]" Then it says, under Biographies, "Subcategories of these categories are named 'nationality ...'" which includes People by nationality and occupation - People by occupation and nationality - People. Looking at the structure, it follows: Category:People by nationality and occupation --> Category:European people by occupation --> Category:British actors --> Category:British actors by medium --> Category:British film actors .. then suddenly it's Category:United Kingdom film actor stubs. I have no idea why this should suddenly break with the established convention, do you? --Setanta747 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. It breaks with the convention for permcats because it follows the convention for stub cats. Stub categories don't follow the same conventions as permanent categories, since the names would often get cumbersome. That's why we have, say rather than, which it would be if we followed permcat naming conventions, for example. Naming follows different conventions for stub cats - always has done. Grutness...wha?  00:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, the categories are, top-down: Category:Categories by nationality --> Category:People by occupation and nationality --> Category:Film actors by nationality --> Category:British film actors, and Category:People by occupation and nationality --> Category:Film actors by nationality --> Category:British film actors... --Setanta747 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that that has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion, given that none of them are stub categories. Grutness...wha?  00:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you've read what I typed. I have asked the question: why do stub categories vary from the established convention? --Setanta747 (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read my reply, so I'll repeat it: Stub categories don't follow the same conventions as permanent categories, since the names would often get cumbersome. Grutness...wha?  23:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So this makes it necessary for me to repeat my point, again: why should stub categories not follow established convention? --Setanta747 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They do. They follow the conventions for stub categories. Grutness...wha?  00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * .. which again leads to the question, why should the stub categories not follow estabilished convention? I can't see that Cat:Geography of Canada stubs is particularly more complex than Cat:Canada geography stubs. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They do follow established convention, as I've been telling you - over and over again. Please read my answers instead of simply repeating the same question which has already been answered some half a dozen or so times. If you can't understand that answer, then there's no point in continuing to repeat it. Grutness...wha?  00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have to point out to you that they don't follow the established convention, as I've been telling you, over and over etc. If you can't understand my question, there is no reason for you to continue replying to it and repeating what you have already said. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On another note, re your "Why don't people read the instructions?" comment - I haven't the time to read every single nuance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines etc and be so familiar with it. You should be a little less dry about it and respect the fact that, while some people can afford to edit Wikipedia all day long, others cannot. I help others when they're less familiar than myself and rolling your eyes, metaphorically speaking, when one of us gets it wrong isn't the most helpful of attitudes. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no "attitude" involved. No-one is "metaphorically rolling their eyes" - it was a simple question - why didn't you read the instructions? Surely it is common sense to check that you're doing things right - and the big box at the top of CFD explains clearly what CFD is and isn't for. If you're unsure of the processes involved because you don't do this sort of thing "all day long", then the most obvious thing to do is to check what you're doing. If there's any "rolling of the eyes" its over someone blaming others for a perceived non-existent attitude rather thanmaking an attempt to get things right themselves. Grutness...wha?  22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seemed like an eye-rolling attitude to me. I answered your question. I had checked that I was doing things right, by the way. However, Wikipedia has become increasingly complex and I am, after all, only human. CfD is the usual place for renaming of cats, from what I'd remembered and so I went there. If you don't like the work you're doing here, then don't do it. If you don't like that others try to fix things, whether you agree with what they were trying to do, or whether they misunderstood policies or messed up or got it right, then don't go looking for excuses to roll your eyes. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said - I didn't roll my eyes, and I certainly didn't "look for excuses" to do so, either. And I do enjoy my work here, thank you, except on some occasions such as when someone decides to go on the attack as a result of an innocuous question. SFD has been the place to rename stub categories for a long time, and it is heavily indicated in most process pages relating to renaming of categories. It is here to make Wikipedia less complex, since most of the work here would require parallel and identical debates on CfD and TfD if it didn't exist (the whole reason it was started in the first place). Grutness...wha?  00:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The question didn't appear innocuous to me. It appeared as an attack, which is why I defended, rather than attacking. As I said, I do not have the time to get to know every nuance of Wikipedia policy. I am, first and foremost, an editor. I have never applied for Admin-ship. On the other hand, you have. It is therefore, I would imagine, your job to guide, help and correct (mistakes made by) editors - not to attack them by patronising them. You have two choices here: you can accept what I am telling you about how you attitude appeared to me, or we can continue to have this debate in what is probably an inappropriate place. Please consider how your comments appear to others in future. --Setanta747 (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will - as I always do - so long as you consider that when you perform a task that you are unsure of it is best to check first that you are doing it right first time and don't try to shift the blame by attacking anyone who tells you if you get it wrong. Grutness...wha?  23:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should point out to you that I haven't tried to blame, or shift any blame, to anyone. I have merely pointed out a flaw in your attitude that I had noticed. Nor did I attack anyone. As I always do, I will continue, when I perform a task, to check that I am doing it right the first time. Once again I will tell you that I am only human and that I am primarily an editor. As an admin, it's your job to ensure that policies and procedure are followed correctly. That's demarcation for you. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm - blaming me for a non-existent flaw in a non-existent attitude is still blaming. The fault, if anywhere, was with your failure to read the instructions (despite your comments about always checking that you get it right the first time - if you had done that this time, none of this would have happened). All I was doing and still am is, as you say, trying to ensure that procedure is correctly followed. That procedure does not include blaming the messenger. Grutness...wha?  00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I did not apportion blame. I suggested that your attitude was not helpful. Again, I do check that I get things right first time. However, I reiterate my point about my being merely human. Following procedure doesn't mean you need to patronise fellow editors. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Look. This is getting so far away from the point that it is not funny. There are clearly points we are not going to agree on here, and I'm not prepared to keep wasting pixels trying to convince you that simply reading the instructions would have been the best move, and that blaming me for a misperceived attitude rather than simply acknowledging the error and moving on is not going to help anyone. For any perceived slight, apologies - but believe me there was none there. All I did was point out your error and the location of the instructions. Can we get back to the point in hand, please? Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have no need to convince me with regard to reading anything - I was already quite aware of the advantage of this. Your attitude assumes that humans are not prone to mistakes and oversights. Your comment appeared presumptuous and patronising.


 * The point had been that the category does not follow the established convention of other categories. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that it does follow the naming conventions for stub categories - something you seem unable to grasp, despite it having been pointed out to you now on numerous occasions. Rather than attempting to grasp this, you appear far more concerned with firstly blaming me for pointing your errors out and now suggesting that my simple comment was "presumptuous and patronising", a suggestion which i find offensive. Of course you are prone to error, as are we all. But anyone with any sense would recognise that they had made an error, apologise, then move on, knowing not to do so again. Instead of that, you simply claimed, quote: "As I always do, I will continue, when I perform a task, to check that I am doing it right the first time", something which was clearly not the case on this occasion. I'm not sure why you are in so much denial over your failure to follow the instructions this time, or why you are clearly also in so much denial over your attacks on me for this, but clearly nothing more can be gained from attempting to debate with you on this, since you apparently lack the ability to understand any of this. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am able to "grasp" what you have said just fine, thank you. Now you have adopted a somewhat angry tone and I would suggest you calm down before thinking about replying to this again. I made an observation with regard to a comment you had made. If you find my observation to be offensive, perhaps you should look at why I might have been offended by your initial comment in the first place. It is not my job to administrate this encyclopaedia - it is your job. You are an administrator. As such, you are the person on which the onus falls to correct mistakes made by the masses - the editors.
 * I actually did check that I had done it right the first time - you are incorrect when you assert that it "was clearly not the case on this occasion". I have not denied that I have "followed the instructions". I get the feeling that you're reading responses from somebody else, but certainly not from myself.
 * I have not made any attacks on you at all. I simply pointed out that your rhetorical question, "Why don't people read the instructions?" was patronising. Now an example of an attack, on the other hand, is perhaps when someone suggests that someone else lacks an ability. In fact, this is what you have been doing constantly, blaming me for lacking the ability to understand, to read instruction, to follow instruction... As an admin, it is partly your job to clean up mistakes that editors make. As they say in the US: suck it up. But do not patronise me. I am quite well aware of my failings and my errors, and I don't need patronising from the likes of yourself. Please re-consider your attitude and stop defending the indefensible. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never patronised you - all I have done is try to find out why you did not follow clear instructions. Every time I have, you have insisted that you did, yet the very thing you see when you open up WP:CFD is big clear instructions at the top of the page saying: "Discussion of stub categories is at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion." If this is not clear enough, then it will need to be altered to make it clearer. If this is patronising, I'm sorry - it is not intended to be, it is simply trying to get information from you, information that you have proved so far unwilling to tell me. Rather than helping by telling me why you failed to read this, you continually insist on tellling me that i shouldn't be concerned as to why you got it wrong, (not that you did, in your view), but should simply clear up your mistake (not that you made one, in your view), and that from trying to find out why the mistake was made in the first place I am being "patronising", "presumptuous", "looking for excuses", and adopting "an angry tone". It may be difficult to get tones and attitudes across in print, but it is clearly possible for you to thoroughly misinterpret them. Also, when it is pointed out to you that permanent categories and stub categories use different naming conventions, you insist that this category still need renaming since it doesn't follow the (permanent) category naming conventions - conventions which don;'t apply to stub categories as they use a different naming scheme. Now, to top it all off you suggest I "suck it up" - thank you, but that is far beyond the bounds of what is appropriate here - I have no intention of "sucking it up" for you or for anyone else. Please take your obscene suggestions elsewhere. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Observation: If one uses the permanent category naming convention, there is still room for the use of "United Kingdom" in this context, per How to name a nationality: "Some states do not possess unambiguous (i.e. Democratic Republic of the Congo) or universally-applicable (i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina) adjectives. In these circumstances, users should use the format "Country foo", where Country is the unamended name of the country." Her Pegship <small style="color:green;"> (tis herself) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there should be any difference, to be honest. Why should this category be treated any differently. Besides which, United Kingdom is a noun and not an adjective or a nationality. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't think this usage is appropriate, you should address that issue at the naming convention page. Her Pegship <small style="color:green;"> (tis herself) 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * United Kingdom is both a noun and an adjective, in the same way that United States is. For examples, see United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, United Kingdom Energy Technologies Institute, United Kingdom Carrom Federation, United Kingdom National Universities Pipe Band, and many other such examples. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A noun that's frequently used attributively, in part due to the ambiguity of the term British. Alai (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current name is the least-worst option for a minimal mangling of the permcat names that gives stub category names that are horizontally consistent, and don't add ambiguity where there was none before.  I could go on at great length about this question...  but already have done in the past -- too often, indeed.  Alai (talk) 01:08, 1 October 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.