Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/7
February 7
[edit]Several Texas city categories
[edit]- 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 categories - relist templates for potential renaming
- Category:Austin stubs → Category:Austin, Texas stubs
- Category:Dallas stubs → Category:Dallas, Texas stubs
- Category:Houston stubs → Category:Houston, Texas stubs
Rename to reduce ambiguity, fit the normal category naming conventions, and match parents Category:Austin, Texas, Category:Dallas, Texas, and Category:Houston, Texas. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Templates are probably fine where they are though. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno about "ambiguity": Dallas and Houston are redirects, and Austin is a rather marginal-looking dab page, listing N-1 places I'd never heard of, and the one it probably should be a redirect to. However, if the permcats and article names are going to be over-qualified -- and evidently, they are -- we should probably rename to match. However, {{Austin-TX-stub}} is horrendous (it seems to have been moved from {{Austin-stub}} and that redirect deleted, without reference to this page. Move back. Alai (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erk! I'd assumed they were at {{Austin-stub}} and the like. {{Austin-TX-stub}} is a horrific bastardisation of a stub name. Move back per Alai and lose the dog. Grutness...wha? 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, moving the templates to {{AustinTX-stub}}, {{HoustonTX-stub}} and {{DallasTX-stub}} might be reasonable - though a separate debate is possibly needed for that. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erk! I'd assumed they were at {{Austin-stub}} and the like. {{Austin-TX-stub}} is a horrific bastardisation of a stub name. Move back per Alai and lose the dog. Grutness...wha? 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
{{Kosova-geo-stub}}
[edit]- 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 turned into fully-formed kosovo-geo-stub, kosova form then deleted. Not yet at threshold for separate category, but closing in
And so it goes again. Every time Kosovo gets close to independence, another group of Kosovo stub types appear. At present there are several, all redirects to Euro- or Serbia- equivalents. And all except this unproposed, newly created one, use "Kosovo", as is neutral and in keeping with the idea of noun forms. This one, however, does not. Given that there's already an acceptable redirect at {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} and also given the potential fractiousness of the term Kosova, this one should be deleted, speedily by precedent if possible. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Kosovo were an independent state, we'd have at least an upmerged template, and a category if numbers indicated it; if Kosovo were an autonomous province of Serbia, we'd have at least an upmerged template, and a category if numbers indicated it. Alternative spellings are generally cause for redirects. So I'd favour redirecting this to {{Kosovo-geo-stub}}, turning that into a full-fledged template (rather than a redirect), populating it, and if it's over threshold, creating a dual-parented category. By the same token, if it doesn't, the template should itself be double-upmerged. Alai (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You miss the point of the name, Alai - Kosova is the Albanian name for Kosovo, and is one likely to cause offence to some people in the region. It's a bit like using the term "Rhodesia" to apply to modern Zimbabwe, or (dare I say it) "Danzig" to apply to Gdansk - for that reason, keeping it as a redirect is unwise, to say the least. As to the redirection of Kosovo-X-stub to the Euro-X-stub equivalents, that was done because of persistent editwarring over the templates. The only way that could easily be fixed is to make them into upmerged templates (or templates with categories) then preemptively protecting them from editing until such times that the area gets independence. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Change to Kosovo, as in English media, or waiting the coincidence of the stub tree. Matthew_hk tc 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Various Chinese sports bio templates
[edit]- 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 templates
Hi all - I've just noticed that several Chinese stub types designated (if the icons are anything to go by) for China PR simply use the word "China-" in their template names, wheras I'm pretty sure that ChinaPR- is standard. I'd like to nominate the following for renaming (with no preference for keeping/discarding the redirect), and suggest we may need to keep an eye out for others:
- {{China-athletics-bio-stub}} →
{{ChinaPR-athletics-bio-stub}}{{PRChina-athletics-bio-stub}} - {{China-sport-bio-stub}} →
{{ChinaPR-sport-bio-stub}}{{PRChina-sport-bio-stub}} - {{China-footy-bio-stub}} →
{{ChinaPR-athletics-bio-stub}}{{PRChina-athletics-bio-stub}}{{PRChina-footy-bio-stub}} (see also further discussion below on footy-stubs in general) - {{China-badminton-bio-stub}} →
{{ChinaPR-athletics-bio-stub}}{{PRChina-athletics-bio-stub}}{{PRChina-badminton-bio-stub}}
I've no objection to the use of the term China- when it's clearly for items which have a shared history between the Chinas, but unless I'm much mistaken in these cases that seems a little dubious. If these stub types are intended for both Chinas, then the icons definitely need changing, too! Grutness...wha? 02:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "PRC-" or "PRChina-", please. Alai (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good point - and PRC isn't a standard name used for stubs either (or if it is I'd like to know why!). Amended accordingly. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As creator and proposer of 3/4 templates I can state they are for PRC. I Support change but ask if the china- variety can be kept as redirects otherwise I may end up leaving a load of red links all over the place because I'll frquently forget to use the PRChina templates. Waacstats (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable - we could always do whyat we did with {{China-geo-stub}}, add a note saying "this is deprecated, please replace with either PRChina- or Taiwan-" That might not be necessary yet though since we don't have equivalent Taiwan stub types yet. When we do, it would make sense. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PRC is completely standard in general usage, while "PRChina" is merely conventional in the context of the ST-NGs, and a somewhat marginal application thereof, at that. We should have (at least) redirects at PRC-. Alai (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May be worth standardising one way or the other while there's still only a handful of templates. I must admit that I rarely if ever think of PRC referring to China, but that's because I occasionally dealt with PRC curves in my university studies (ironically I also used ROC curves to analyse some of my results!) In any case, PRC means a whole bunch of different things. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As creator and proposer of 3/4 templates I can state they are for PRC. I Support change but ask if the china- variety can be kept as redirects otherwise I may end up leaving a load of red links all over the place because I'll frquently forget to use the PRChina templates. Waacstats (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good point - and PRC isn't a standard name used for stubs either (or if it is I'd like to know why!). Amended accordingly. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I also changed the templates. I don't think we need 3 templates for athletics.Waacstats (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops - cut'n'paste strikes again! :) Grutness...wha? 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the is only one China. Matthew_hk tc 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, there are 2 Chinas: the People's Republic of China and Republic of China. --contribsSTYROFOAM?1994TALK 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 delete per author request. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unproposed, misnamed, and with no apparent likelihood of reaching threshold - indeed there is no parent category Category:Children's book series to check for numbers. Only used once. Other stub types for children's books all use the form {{Child-x-stub}}, thereby avoiding problems with the apostrophe (among other reasons), so if the template is kept it should be renamed. Given the lack of a parent category, though, it seems unnecessary to keep it. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Category:Series of children's books would be the parent.) So far there are only {{child-book-stub}}, {{child-lit-stub}}, and {{child-novel-stub}}, and a series stub isn't the next most needed (that would be {{child-picture-book-stub}} or {{child-nonfiction-book-stub}}). Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.