Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/March 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create

Currently there are over 700 articles tagged as "wine stubs", and there are a significant number assessed as stubs by the Wine Project. Looking at the ones currently labeled as wine stubs, I'd like to propose a few sub-groups to make the stubs more manageable for the project:

Cat:Wine grape stubs/{{wine-grape-stub}} (currently 178)
Cat:Winery stubs/{{winery-stub}} (currently 135)
Cat:Wine region stubs/{{wine-region-stub}} (currently 86)
Cat:Wine biography stubs/{{wine-bio-stub}} (currently 69) - there is currently a {{drink-bio-stub}} but most of these do not seem have that tag. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• As Cat:Wine regions is a descendant (great-great-great-grandchild) of Cat:Geography it probably would be best to make that stub template be {{wine-geo-stub}} (With {{wine-region-stub}} as a redirect or vice versa as the template and {{wine-geo-stub}} as the redirect.) so to indicate the link with other geography based stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)'
  • Hm -I'd have gone the other way on that - I'd prefer wine-region-stub with a redirect at wine-area-stub (to parallel protected-area-stub). It's perhaps a little too specialised to be considerd primarily a geo-type, I think. BTW, support all four, but with the usual caveat about double-stubbing with subregion-geo/nation-bio/etc. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Howdy, as a wine project member, I would also prefer wine-region-stub since that is how those areas are most commonly refer to. You will rarely, if ever, hear about a wine geographical area. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, I know that the two terms aren't entirely interchangeable, but would a vineyard-stub redirect for winery-stub be appropriate, and wording it so that it covers both? It's quite likely that a lot of the stubs cover one or the other but not both, and it would probably be useful to keep them all in the same place for editors. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The vineyard and the winery usually have the same name, i.e. the last name of the owner is the name of the winery and the vineyard ... I think.Goldenrowley 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd go with {{wine-region-stub}} for the (actual) template, to echo the language of the category. The various redirects mentioned would probably be "allowed", but I wouldn't see any of them as being "required" (as Dr. Feel would say). I see what Grutness is saying about vineyards; as there's no separate Cat:vineyards permcat, that may be reasonable too, though possibly a separate up(?)merged template would be preferable. Alai 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would "Wine Producer" be a better way to phrase it maybe? --- The Bethling^(Talk) 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer to keep the language of the permcat, and lump in the vineyards (semi-)regardless, and worry about 'em later. Alai 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support all except Wine region stubs: Region is essentially overlap or distracting from the geography stubs. For example Sonoma and Napa Counties, California, and most of France are wine regions. So it means double stubbing with existing geographical stubs. Goldenrowley 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Trying to explain my position we can easily make Napa and Sonoma Counties and France stubs appear under Perm Cat for wine regions, can't we?Goldenrowley 01:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Although there's a lot a wine made there, I'm not sure that I'd consider them as wine regions by themselves. They're counties that happen to contain a number of defined wine regions. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Although 'technically' the counties are wine regions, what I'd like the stubs for are the AOC's in France, the AVAs in the US, and similarly nationally defined wine regions in other countries. So things like Columbia Valley AVA in the US or Châteauneuf-du-Pape AOC. These sorts of regions are really only defined and used within the wine world and wouldn't really have the double stubbing problem. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Napa County wouldn't be classified as a wine region and it would be a tremendous rarity to ever see Napa County listed on a wine bottle. Napa Valley on the other hand, is a legally defined American Viticultural Area and can thusly be considered a "wine region". AVA's and AOC are distinctly classified and thus little concern for overlap. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay seeing there is a precise wine region definition, I can agree, thank you. Goldenrowley 09:04, 11 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

The architecture stub category is bursting its seams with stub articles: Architecture/Rooms is one of the largest groupings. See a proposed architecture menu under Cat:architectural elements although my proposal is to link to Cat:rooms. Another possible proposal is architectural styles from same menu. Goldenrowley 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• If I'm following you here (and I do stress, if), then shouldn't this simply be Cat:room stubs? What potential population? Alai 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I was not clear. Yes we can simplify to Cat:room stubs. Looks like about 50-70. Goldenrowley 03:45, 20 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

I may as well propose this one too, as it has a larger count than rooms. Goldenrowley 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• May I suggest that Cat:architectural style stubs would follow the language of the permcat a tad better? And be a sensible category name, to boot? Alai 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. I can be more sensible. Thank you Goldenrowley 03:48, 20 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

This is a parallel to {{mech-engineering-stub}}, which I discovered improperly applied to a civil engineering stub article. Perusing {{engineering-stub}}s, I can find about 30 articles which would definitely belong in civil engineering stubs, and there are probably more which aren't tagged as engineering-stubs, including some number of {{geology-stub}}s I've already created the stub type and added one article to it, before I ran across the proposal procedure. If this isn't approved, I'll delete the stub type. Αργυριου (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

weak support. Would need 60 existing stubs and a little cleanup in the template and category, but otherwise sounds like reasonable idea. Monni 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the template, upmerged if it doesn't prove populable to north of 50, at the very least. Alai 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is 60 if we recategorize the things I've stubbed with {{industrial-design-stub}} and pick up some stragglers found in architecture and in design? please forgiveme if I have accidentally confused several occupations in making this proposal. Goldenrowley 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)...considering my history you might wonder why I want to do away with industrial design stub so soon. Because I searched hard, but I only found a few articles on industrial design and it has no career path. Goldenrowley 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Between base engineering stubs, architecture stubs which are about engineering, geology stubs which are either more about engineering or are both, and your suggested industrial design stubs, I think I should be able to tag 60 articles fairly quickly, when I have time to go stub-hunting. Αργυριου (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I SUPPORT! with upmerge the industrial design stubs into the Civil E. category. Goldenrowley 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Got 62 articles into the stub category on a quick trawl through {{engineering-stub}} and {{geology stub}}. Αργυριου (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record the category proposed is Cat:Civil engineering stubs Goldenrowley 04:17, 27 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create Cat:Papuan language stubs

• Cat:Papuan language stubs

We already have several stub types for different language families, but not this one. There are several hundred of these languages, most of which will unfortunately remain stubs for a long time to come. Some may have already been incorrectly given the stub template for Austronesian languages. --Ptcamn 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying there's several hundred stub articles at present (or at least, over 60), or just that there's severeal hundred such languages? Alai 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Alai, there are hundreds of articles already - not sure how many of them are stubs, but at a guess most of them are. May be worth running this past whoever cameup with that "two-letter code language stub template" system, though. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are enough stubs based on the number in the language category, but that's just a guess. I'll get on counting it. Aelfthrytha 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer my own question, from the Feb. db dump, I can find exactly 60 tagged with lang-stub, and under Cat:Papuan languages. So, support. Alai 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

{{pa-lang-stub}}? Owch. Alai 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do they speak that oddly in Pittsburgh...? :/ Grutness...wha? 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can archive the category as a consensus to create. However, I cannot with a conscious archive "pa-language-stub" as a clear consensus. Goldenrowley 06:08, 20 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

• Cat:Northern Thailand geography stubs
• Cat:Isan geography stubs
• Cat:Central Thailand geography stubs
• Cat:Southern Thailand geography stubs

Parent is now oversized, and as the country has over 70 first-order subdivisions, those seem unlikely to be viable in the short term. Instead, I suggest upmerged provincial templates, feeding into the above allegedly generally-recognised regions of Thailand. Alai 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally support/I question naming of Isan is that a good idea? Goldenrowley 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what the {featured) article is called. Alai 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Northeast Thailand" is an alternative name, according to regions of Thailand.It looks like Isan is a regional name, based on the language and can be spelled several ways. Goldenrowley 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a case for a different name, I'd suggest addressing that at the article in the first instance. If we have a {{Isan-geo-stub}}, then also having a template or redirect at {{Northeast-Thailand-geo-stub}} might be sensible, though in the first instance I was thinking in terms of having only the upmerged provincial templates. Alai 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am in consensus. Goldenrowley 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support and will help sort it. Aelfthrytha 13:48, 9 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

Oversized parent, these would hit 133. Alai 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Support would also be a parent for Cat:Republic of Ireland football biography stubsbut what about Cat:Northern Irish football biography stubs which is a subcat of a subcat of Cat:Irish people stubs. Waacstats 00:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can tell me exactly what the scope of Cat:Irish people is (other than "deeply muddled"), I might be able to answer that. Alai 05:20, 11 March 2007 (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 creation 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 do not create

• Cat:Former Yugoslav political party stubs 133
• Cat:Scandinavian political party stubs 91

I realize we normally avoid semi-arbitrary conglomerations of countries, but these two do have permcats (though with stray capitalisation, which makes me wonder just how well-thought out they actually are). Otherwise, we might look at carving up the continent by UN geoscheme sub-region. Alai 06:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the Scandanavian one, but a quick glance at Cat:Europe political party stubs convinces me that there is some considerable undersorting into the existing subtypes. In any case, the former Yugoslav one should be considered only after all other options have been exhausted. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see the relevance in the "Scandinavia" group (without going into that the defintion of this groups is still a bit tricky). Scandinavians understand each other peoples' languages and have similar cultures but that's about it. There is next to no policy coordination between the Nordic countries and no formal bonds between the parties either. The Nordic Council never had any power and it will never get it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:17, 19 March 2007 (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 creation 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 3 creates: Galliformes, Anseriformes, and Falconiformes. Others do no create.

• Cat:Galliformes stubs 75
• Cat:Anseriformes stubs 71
• Cat:Anatoidea stubs 69
• Cat:Bird of prey stubs 69
• Cat:Anatidae stubs 69
• Cat:Falconiformes stubs 60

Parent is oversized again. Several of these have been proposed previously: I include them here for the sake of completeness, and since since several of these are either-or. Alai 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if we're going by order, then bird of prey is out (especially since falconiformes would cover much of it) - it could easily be hijacked by the star trek project if we weren't careful, too! :) Mind you, that would also rule out anatidae and anatoidea since IIRC they're anseriformes. Given that, I'd go with Galliformes, Anseriformes, and Falconiformes. Keeping to the order level might be appropriate for a while, at least. Grutness...wha? 11:22, 6 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

• Cat:Lycaenidae stubs 148
• Cat:Nymphalidae stubs 136
• Cat:Pieridae stubs 117
• Cat:Papilionidae stubs 69

Parent is at exactly 800 stubs at present. Alai 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow I can't beleive there's so many butterflies ... support! Goldenrowley 20:25, 6 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

As the number of stubs in the Cat:Senegalese footballers category has reached the consensus tally of 60, I will make and populate the mentioned template and category. Poulsen 11:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now created. Two stub articles in the Cat:Senegalese footballers were about non-Senegalese players, and so the tally is 58 stubs in the newly created category. Poulsen 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was probably the right thing to do, but waiting for the approval period is standard. Please hold off next time as a just in case sort of thing - there have been a few times when I'm sure and then a user points out something I haven't thought of yet. Aelfthrytha 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't promise you that, in the case of football biography stubs. They have so concrete a structure, that the only real task is counting to 60. Poulsen 16:34, 9 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

• Cat:Spanish football club stubs 89
• Cat:Turkish football club stubs 82

Parent is oversized, these seem to be viable. (Cat:Yugoslav football clubs is next closest at 47.) Alai 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that thar's a lot of undersorting. Alai 05:50, 6 March 2007 (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 creation 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 create

I propose this to subcategory to help differentiate the 8 page list of historians, and also to eliminate double stubbing (art and historian). I checked and over 60. People put them in the generic "art category" a lot. Goldenrowley 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Forgive my momentary lapse of impeccable English) Goldenrowley 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom as one who is responsible for some of that double stubbing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • note I have nothing against double stubs (I take that approach too) it just will be neater and nicer ! Goldenrowley 21:49, 3 March 2007 (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 creation 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 not really a stub question, but GR adding the article to Wikipedia for Seacritter.

{{Panama-geo-stub}}/ Gulf of Chiriqui

The Gulf of Chiriqui is a unique part of Panama. This Gulf also encompasses Coiba National Park and Golfo de Chiriqui National Park. There are many islands in this Gulf. Along with the islands of Coiba National Park there is also Islas Secas, Los Ladrones, Parilla and Montuoso. Montuoso is the farthest island from Panama in this Gulf. During certain seasons, you can even spot Galapagos seals on Montuoso. The Gulf of Chiriqui also includes one of the most famous fishing areas, Hannibal Banks. Here the sky is the limit as to the size of the fish you can catch. (Seacritter 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

If that's a stub you wish to create, and your account is too new to allow you to do so yourself, you're probably looking for WP:AFC. Alai 21:07, 3 March 2007 (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 creation 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 sent to SFD for deletion

Stub for use by Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What does Infrared have to with Irish Republicanism? A definite need for a rename to something way less ambiguous at a minimum. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be redirected to finance-stub, since I doubt there would be enough stubs on Inland Revenue for their own stub type. More seriously, this should definitely be deleted - republicanism in Ireland is to do with irish politicvs and irish history, and as such either an Ireland-poli-stub or Ireland-hist-stub would be the way to go. We don't have stubs for republicanism movements in other countries, and there's no reason why we should start with one that is a likely edit-war magnet like the Irish one. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

delete for being ambiguous. Monni 05:41, 5 March 2007 (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 creation 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 No consensus reached.

I've been working on criminology topics, as one of my areas of focus on Wikipedia. Despite my slow efforts, our coverage of this topic remains poor. I just created an article on the highly influential work, The Division of Labour in Society by Emile Durkheim, which is a classic work that is covered in basic-level criminology (and sociology) university courses. I'm surprised that this article did not exist yet. A few months back, I also found that no article existed on gun violence. (this is still a stub) As I keep working on this topic, I'm sure to find many more such missing articles. When I create them, I'd like to tag them as a stub, with something more specific than {{crime-stub}}. This stub category isn't quite appropriate for articles like The Division of Labour in Society, which is a hodgepodge category. The same situation applies to our coverage of criminal justice topics, which deal with the system/response aspects of crime such as corrections (prisons and other forms of punishment) and law enforcement. The {{crime-stub}} category includes numerous articles on correctional facilities (e.g. Sullivan Correctional Facility, Sugamo Prison, Ogdensburg Correctional Facility, to name a few). At this point, I'm pretty much the WikiProject, and hope you will cut me some slack on the "good number of stub articles" requirement. I think many of these stub articles don't exist yet. Stub categories that are more specific than "crime" would help me (and others) keep track of articles and work on criminology and criminal justice topics. --Aude (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that we have {{prison-stub}}, which helps. It still would help to have something between {{crime-stub}} and {{prison-stub}}. "Crime" is just too broad, and sorting things into more specific stub categories such as {{criminal-justice-stub}} and {{criminology-stub}} would help me enormously. --Aude (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's already {{law-enforcement-stub}}, {{criminal-law-stub}}, {{forensics-stub}} and {{criminologist-stub}} in addition to the aforementioned {{prison-stub}}. (Not to mention {{crime-bio-stub}} and {{crime-org-stub}}.) With only ~450 crime stubs and apparently a fair degree of undersorting (which sadly is not that unusual for stub categories), I'm inclined to be skeptical of the desirability of either proposed stub without some indication that there are the normal amount stubs for creating a new stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

{{criminologist-stub}} could be merged into {{criminology-stub}}. {{law-enforcement-stub}}, {{forensics-stub}}, and {{prison-stub}} would be subcategories of {{criminal-justice-stub}}. If really necessary, I could probably find 30-60 stubs to create for each... the topic is that underrepresented. But don't have the time to do that now, and it's better to do them more gradually. And such arbitrary requirements are just that... arbitrary. For now, I just won't bother tagging them as stubs, because lumping all these together under {{crime-stub}}, especially for criminology topics, is not useful for people working on the articles. --Aude (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the first task is to sort the crime stub articles into the 5 (or more) existing categories, then see how many are have left over, since Carewine mentioned there are 450 undersorted crime stubs, a good sort may clean it right up into good condition again? Goldenrowley 05:03, 5 March 2007 (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 creation 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 East China, Southwest China, North China, Northeast China, Anhui, Guangdong, and Zhejiang geo stubs all proposed. No clear outcome.

We've already split off South Central China geography stubs into a category which contains five templates for the provinces in the region, and that's done something to reduce the PRC geography stubs. However, the main cat is still at five pages - slightly less than 1,000 stubs. I propose furthering the Alai solution by adding four more categories: East China geography stubs, Southwest China geography stubs, North China geography stubs, and Northeast China geography stubs. Only the Northwest region is not ready for a split - for all of the others I simply stopped counting at 65, and I stopped at letter "L" so there would be quite a bit remaining. This would save a lot of work down the road and get the category under control. Along with that, I propose making the Anhui, Guangdong, and Zhejiang geography stubs subcategories of the relevant regions. Aelfthrytha 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. With any luck, it may also be a step on the way to alleviating the ongoing "mainland" bickering. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. (Eponymous support even, I suppose.) This is clearly growing quite quickly, and if it continues doing so, we may be able to just split by more of the first-order divisions before too long. I think we should probably create Cat:Northwestern China geography stubs too, since it'd have an existing subcat in the form of Cat:Xinjiang geography stubs. Of course, it won't so much alleviate the "mainland" bickering, as open up a second front: whichever possible parent one chooses, the other faction will complain about it (witness Instantnood showing up on my talk page recently in relation to the South Centrals). I believe I'm going to take the matter back to SFD, and perhaps if necessary DRV, to attempt to get clearer resolution one way or another. Alai 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I doubt whether this will result in any less fighting. Even in my current location on the island that may or may not be part of the PRC or the ROC depending on who you ask, people can't get along politically. Expect people on both sides of the strait and beyond to get along? I don't think so. Aelfthrytha 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was really meaning more with HK and Macao vs "Mainland". RoC is asking too much. If the UN can't solve that, I doubt a bunch of stub sorters can. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As I was saying, it won't so much alleviate anything as... Alai 03:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. But the new categories should remain sub-cats of Category:Mainland China geography stubs in any case. Mainland China (which is commonly known simply as China) is the main part of the People's Republic of China. Michael G. Davis 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • POLLY WANT A CRACKER

  All very well, except that "Mainland China" is an unofficial description which lends itself to all sorts of misinterpretation (is Hainan mainland China?). Also, there are no permcats for "Mainland China" (for the same reason), so there's no reason why there should be stubcats. Grutness...wha? 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • • As far as I know "mainland China" is not unofficial. Governments use it, international organizations use it, and the press uses it, too. Hainan is mainland China. What do you mean by permcats? Michael G. Davis 04:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Permcats, to quote Wikipedia:Glossary#Permcat, A permanent category - that is, a category into which an article is assigned to aid reader navigation, as opposed to a temporary assignment relating to a process such as cleanup or stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I created several permanent categories for mainland China, but another editor was following me all the way through, took away all articles, and requested to delete these categories. Why did it happen? By the way, Hainan has always been considered to be mainland China. Michael G. Davis 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • These categories being? Where they considered at WP:CFD, or "speedied"? Alai 08:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • They were marked to be empty and shortly after that they were deleted. Is that what speedied means to be? Michael G. Davis 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Creating them was discussed, and rejected. Creating them after the discussion was deleted. SchmuckyTheCat 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Can either of you please tell me which categories were deleted, whether or not they were "speedied"? Alai 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • Category:Airports in mainland China, Category:Transportation in mainland China, Category:Cinema of mainland China. Michael G. Davis 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • (I've taken the liberty of linkifying the above, please excuse.) These do indeed seem to have been speedied as "reposts", as nominated by StC: however, none were actually previously deleted, so I'm attempting to disentangle the story here. In the case of "airports", it seems to have started off as a proposal to rename the PRC category to MC(!), which failed, have been created anyway as Cat:Airports of mainland China, featured in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence, and then been empty for a year before being deleted. That would at least would seem to be in "angels fear to tread" territory as far as (re)creation without some clear consensus to do so. However, if you wish to re-open those matters, please take it up with the deleting admins, at WP:DRV, or at the appropriate naming convention page, and settle the matter one way or another, rather than having a "second front" on the stubcats without regard to any consistency between the two. In any case, I don't know of any past or present permanent parent to the geography stubcat, so I don't see how those assist us here. Alai 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, where does Qinghai go in this scheme? Both the Northwest China and Southwest China articles claim it as part of that region. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops. Those articles are certainly in need of being properly referenced, IN's certainly not wrong about that. On the basis of [1], [2] and [3], it appears to actually be in the NW. Alai 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• All these regions are regions in mainland China. Passer-by 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • POLLY WANT A CRACKER
  • Which isn't an official sub-division, isn't an official name, and most pertinently of all, isn't how the permcats are organised. Whither Cat:geography of mainland China, Cat:Subdivisions of mainland China, Cat:provinces of mainland China, Cat:autonomous regions of mainland China, if this is such a great idea? BTW, can you please fix your signature so that it links to your user page (or user_talk: page)? Thanks. Alai 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "Mainland China" is not an unofficial terminology. It is official. I don't know why there isn't perm cat for mainland China, but it depends on different situations. Provinces and so on have their bases in the Constitution, therefore and so on. Passer-by 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please explain in what contexts "mainland China" designates itself as "mainland China" for official purposes. Not when "mainland China" participates in the Olympics, say. Nor when "mainland China" issues passports. No permcat for this situation doesn't exist. The "provinces of the PRC" are quite distinct from "mainland China". If you're not going to create one, and have its existence subject to the will of the community, it makes very little sense to insist that stubs are grouped that way, seemingly solely on the basis of being able to mobilise enough "votes" at SFD and WSS/P, but not elsewhere. And, please link your signature. Alai 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The People's Republic of China does not designate itself as "Mainland China". It defines the majority of itself to be "Mainland China". The People's Republic of China government, for example, releases economic and demographics figures of mainland China. Agencies of the People's Republic of China such as the Securities Regulatory Commission regulates financial activities in mainland China, whereas the People's Bank issues bank notes and coins for use in mainland China. Michael G. Davis 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I repeat my question, which was not couched in terms of how the (entirity of the) PRC designates itself. When "mainland China" participates in the Olympics, it does so as "China". I don't know what passports issued in "mainland China" say precisely, but I'm betting it's "People's Republic of China", and not "mainland China". Your argument is that the PRC is in effect divided into three portions for any number of purposes (which I don't dispute, have never disputed, and have had IN lecturing me on for months), one of which ought to have some distinct appelation we can use, and which you wish to do so as "mainland China". But what I don't see is: any evidence this is an official designation (as opposed to an occasional description in specfic comparisons); any evidence this is the "most common name in English" for that portion; or more to the point, any established consensus on Wikipedia to name, scope and categorise things on such a basis -- and I firmly believe that stub types are entirely the wrong place to start. Alai 01:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support split. Categorise the new categories under mainland China geography stubs. - Privacy 19:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? Alai 01:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Why should Category: Mainland China geography stubs be deleted, skipped and ignored in the first place? - Privacy 07:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • POLLY WANT A CRACKER!

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.