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

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/rescope per Grutness

Moved from CFD - Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs to Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815) stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

WP:DASH —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names,
  talk) 07:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom and
  WP:DASH. Making an en dash is no harder than making a letter capitalized without using the caps lock button. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move this discussion to
  WP:SFD, I will. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Here are a few discussions of
  WP:DASH and its application to categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_19#Canadian_Soccer_League_(1986–1992), Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_13#Bilateral_relations, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#Category:Georgian-Abkhazian_conflict —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Shouldn't this simply be at Cat:Great French War stubs, to follow the permcat? Alai (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little confused. There seems to be more than one relevant permcat - there's also
    Great French War seems to imply that it's the more all-encompassing term, though. This might also mean renaming the template, of course (or creating other upmerged templates, if you prefer), but at least it would get around the hyphen problem. Support rename/rescope to Cat:Great French War stubs, and moving the current template to {{GreatFrenchWar-stub}} (keeping the current template name as a redirect). Grutness...wha? 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The intent seems clearly to be the wider scope, from the text on the category, and indeed the dates (that are causing the initial trouble) in the present category name. Upmerged templates and/or redirects do seem like a good idea, since the broader term is somewhat less familiar. Alai (talk) 02:11, 12 September 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 rename

In line with comments in the discussion process at

• Support renaming to match permcat.Waacstats (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to be consistent w/
  Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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; not linked to any articles

Unproposed, and hardly needed - there is no parent permcat Cat:Superfund, and the one article which used this template was more-effectively covered by other stub types. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a stub type that has limited to no use within Wikipedia. Delete.

• Keep. I created this stub type because there are hundreds of Superfund sites, most of which don't have Wikipedia articles but which could easily support them. I wasn't aware that it was necessary to get advance permission to create stub types, and it seems to violate the spirit of
  WP:BURO to require this. *** Crotalus *** 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It may seem overly-bureaucratic, but there are good reasons for this - have a read of
    User:Grutness/Stub rationales. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete until there are 60+ existing stub articles, per guidelines. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. If a flood of these is imminent, it would perhaps be useful to have a discussion on the most useful way to scope a suitable stub type. Alai (talk) 01:27, 12 September 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 rename as yachtracing-bio-stub, keep current template name as redirect

Following discussion at WSS/P I propose renaming these in line with the article.

Support, with caveat - I take it you've also taken the equivalent perncat to CFD? If so, we should wait to see what happens there (if not, you should probably do so). Grutness...wha? 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knew I would forget something. Waacstats (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

permcat and it's subcats now listed on cfd. Waacstats (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD has now closed as rename so can this be renamed as well. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 16 September 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 rename

Cat:Victoria rail stubs to Cat:Victoria (Australia) rail stubs

Nominator's rationale: Following a

• Boy, does that look ugly. No-one bear to use a comma? But given the other renamings, speedy rename for the sake of uniformity. Alai (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there was some talk of a preference for changing it to "Victoria, Australia" across the board after this initial change was made for conformity. If that happens, of course, this one will change again too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a certain mania for following parenthetical disambiguation in the article space (where it makes actual sense) into the deepest reaches of the category space, which makes for some odd reading in places. But at any rate, there are no stub-specific considerations, so mote it be. Alai (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that at this date stamp I've added the rail stub category as well to this nomination (I've discovered its existence in the meantime ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but would prefer "Victoria, Australia" - will support whichever survives the proposed rename mentioned by GO. BTW, the templates should probably be changed to {{VictoriaAU-foo-stub}} too - what fun. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Alas, the category was renamed with parentheses, so it looks like the stub cat should follow suit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:36, 28 September 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

Moved from tfd and cfd Grutness...wha? 00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Template:Doug-episode-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are no applicable articles for this template and there most likely never will be any. It has no real purpose. TTN (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Nominator's rationale: There are zero articles in the main category, so one for stubs is obviously unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a stub type, I've moved these two debates to

WP:SFD where they belong and merged them. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - possibly speediably since it doesn't seem to have been used. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't tell if it's *ever* been used, but it certainly seems to have been empty for some time. Speedy. Alai (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal archives show that there were 115 articles that were suitable to be placed in the category when it was approved in November 2006. Were all the articles expanded past stub level? Delete now, as there's no real need for empty stub categories. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or perhaps deleted? There was apparently something of a TV episode purge at some point. Alai (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reasonable housecleaning measure. ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 15 September 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

Peculiarly-named (definitely non-NG) redirect to {{Lang-stub}} - made nearly two years ago and only used on one article - which wasn't a stub. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 12 September 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 upmerge
Unproposed and incorrectly formed (it feeds only into a permcat), and with simply no need to be currently made. India-struct-stub as a whole is used on fewer than 400 articles, and if there were splitting out of states, there would be several candidates for higher up the list than Bihar, in terms of numbers of articles. Cat:Buildings and structures in Bihar has only some 40 articles all up, so the chances of this currently getting close to threshold are virtually nil. Currently used on two articles. Delete, or failing that upmerge - properly - to Cat:Indian building and structure stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This one is semi-sensible; perhaps even verging on the forward-looking! Fix and upmerge. Alai (talk) 02:07, 14 September 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
Created unproposed by the same editor as the above, and equally poorly formed - this is a stub for a city in Bihar. Or for a district in Bihar - the category Cat:Patna, into which this erroneously places stubs, is unclear on exactly which it's intended for. Given that we haven't even got a {{Bihar-stub}} this seems very premature, to say the least. Currently unused - there does seem to be a nascent WP:Bihar, though, so upmerge, rename, and change scope up to a {{Bihar-stub}}, and don't keep the current type as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unused, and start over from scratch as and when. Alai (talk) 02:07, 14 September 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 keep per wpss/p discussion

After my spelling problems on proposals I discovered I had an even bigger problem, the Italians only had 40 odd articles and It should have been Japanese category that got created. Can someone please delete this undersized category. does speedy request by only editor work here? Waacstats (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but it's worth having a hunt around for the other 20 first. I've added a couple of other articles to the category, and can probably find a few more... Grutness...wha? 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few tiny unstubbed articles in Cat:Italian volleyball players - I've got the stub cat up to 57 articles now, which is probably close enough to 60 to keep it. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, hopefully I am over my holiday and back to normal. Waacstats (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Sounds like you need a holiday to recover from the holiday! :) Grutness...wha? 00:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday did include an icosathlon so I shouldn't be surprised. Waacstats (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! And you call that a holiday??? Grutness...wha? 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That explains much of Waacs' expertise in so many sport categories...Keep both the category and Waacstats! Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:15, 22 September 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

Unproposed... Initially I thought this was a reasonable stub, but there are several things that need doing to it if (and it's a fairly big if) it's to be kept. The first problem is the name. Literature stubs all use the form lit-stub, never literature-stub. Second, there's the scope and size. This might be fine as an upmerged form to UK-lit-stub, but at the moment there isn't a Cat:United Kingdom literature stubs - nor even a {{UK-lit-stub}}, since there's not a large enough number of lit-stubs that these need splitting out from it. For the most part literature is split by type, rather than by country of origin (though there are some such stub types for literature from countries where English is not a primary language). Though Scotland does hbave a proud literary heritage, I just don't see the need for this stub type at the moment - it should preferably be deleted, or failing that thoroughly rescoped and renamed for British literature as a whole. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Scottish literature only has 52 members so even if they were all stubs this type would still have trouble reaching the ~60 article threshold. - Icewedge (talk) 07:45, 20 September 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 keep WA, del ME

We had a discussion back on 23 June as to what to do with the first of these (outcome - add explanatary note) - We now have the former as a subcat to the latter and some Cat:foo football biography stubs as subcats to both others to just the latter the same with templates. I have no preference to which one we keep the former fits better with what we have done with other footy cats, while the latter fits better with what we do everywhere else. delete either category (but not both).Waacstats (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what do we do with Australia's equivalent? Do we use FIFA's classification (Asia), or the usual UN designation (Oceania)? That might give us a clue which to use on the nominated categories. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The haphazard organization of these two cats is due to my trying to make sense of who was a member of which league...please deal with it as you see fit! <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's keep the West Asian one, and delete the MidEast(TM) one. The governing body is the West Asian Football Federation, and I'd personally favour using the UN geoscheme whenever possible, as otherwise these regional designations tend to be very sketchily or ambiguously defined. Alai (talk) 01:13, 1 October 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 rename and upmerge as {{comedy-book-stub}} - delete current name

Unproposed, misnamed, and unused - also, judging by the number of unsubcategorised articles in Cat:Book stubs, unnecessary. There is no such permcat as Cat:Humor books (or Cat:Humour books, for that matter - the transatlantic difference being another potential problem with this name). There is Cat:Comedy books - to which Cat:Humor books redirects - indicating that a rename to {{Comedy-book-stub}} would make some sense, but - as pointed out - the number of un-subcatted book stubs is very low. Either rename and delete the current name or delete entirely. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I didn't create this item, I can see its usefulness. There are a fair number of Cat:Non-fiction book stubs which are comedy books, so they hang around taking up space in the NF cat. Can we upmerge it for now and see how it goes, under any name you like? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my first preference is for upmerging, but with the name comedy-book-stub, given the permcat and US vs International English problem. I'd prefer not to keep the current name as a redirect, though. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By all means let's go with comedy then. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:36, 9 October 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

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)[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 keep as is

Moved from

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

]

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)[reply]

• This proposal clearly does not qualify for speedy renaming. Please run it through the full, five-day process described at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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: Cat:United Kingdom academic biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom activist stubs; Cat:United Kingdom architect stubs; Cat:United Kingdom artist stubs; Cat:United Kingdom business biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom comics creator stubs; Cat:United Kingdom crime biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom engineer stubs; Cat:United Kingdom film biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom law biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom mathematician stubs; Cat:United Kingdom medical biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom military personnel stubs; Cat:United Kingdom model stubs; Cat:United Kingdom painter stubs; Cat:United Kingdom religious biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom saint stubs; Cat:United Kingdom sportspeople stubs; Cat:United Kingdom writer stubs; Cat:United Kingdom photographer stubs; Cat:United Kingdom architect stubs; Cat:United Kingdom stage actor stubs; Cat:United Kingdom guitarist stubs; Cat:United Kingdom jazz musician stubs; Cat:United Kingdom Olympic medalist stubs; Cat:United Kingdom yacht racing biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom athletics biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom auto racing biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom badminton biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom boxing biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom cycling biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom field hockey biography stubs;Cat:United Kingdom golf biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom motorcycle racing biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom rowing biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom rugby league biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom rugby union biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom swimming biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom tennis biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom winter sports biography stubs; Cat:United Kingdom chemist stubs; Cat:United Kingdom physicist stubs; Cat:United Kingdom Christian clergy stubs; Cat:United Kingdom children's writer stubs; Cat:United Kingdom non-fiction writer stubs; Cat:United Kingdom novelist stubs; Cat:United Kingdom poet stubs;... 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)[reply
    ]
    • 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)[reply]
      • • ...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)[reply]
          • If that's the case, then you have your work cut out for you I guess. However, it states in
            Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by nationality 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)[reply
            ]
            • 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 Cat:Canada geography stubs rather than Cat:Geography of Canada stubs, 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
                    • They do. They follow the conventions for stub categories. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • .. 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)[reply]
                        • 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)[reply]
                        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
                    • 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)[reply]
                      • 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)[reply]

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...wha? 00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...wha? 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...wha? 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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 (tis herself) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]

If you don't think this usage is appropriate, you should address that issue at the

naming convention page. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • United Kingdom is both a noun and an adjective, in the same way that United States is. For examples, see
      United Kingdom Carrom Federation, United Kingdom National Universities Pipe Band, and many other such examples. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • 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)[reply]
• 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)[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

Now here's a really weird one. There's no category - these are all manually added to the category (which has existed for over year but was, of course, unproposed). It contains 40 stubs and the comments at the top of the category make it clear it's intended to be part of an assessment scheme - one without an assessment template. The category is also a child of Cat:British musician stubs, even though not one of the articles is about a musician. A mess all round, really, and not close to threshold. Delete. I might have !voted upmerge if there was anything to upmerge, but with no template... Grutness...wha? 06:23, 23 September 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

{{Netop A/S-stub}}

Unproposed, and goes against stub naming conventions in a couple of ways (space, oblique). No category of any kind. And - the kicker - not just no permcat Cat:Netop A/S, but a key article Netop A/S that is borderline speediable for no context. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not needed. Waacstats (talk) 20:19, 2 October 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.