Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/24

September 24 edit

Cat:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs 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 upmerge

Significantly undersized, and never proposed, as far as I'm aware: upmerge to Cat:Chinese sportspeople stubs. As an aside, this "type" uses a (numeric) template parameter as a sortkey, and a non-standard paramater of {{Stub Category}}, which WSS really ought to make up its mind whether it's going to support, or to deprecate. (I'd suggest the latter, especially as coded in this manner.) Alai 13:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not and should not be a subcategory of the Chinese category (as long as Hong Kong sends its own teams separate from China to sport events). Many other stub articles have yet to be retagged. — Insta ntnood 14:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It['s small enough to be better upmerged somewhere, and the other viable option would be asia-sport-bio-stub. BTW, I notice that this stub template is parameterised, which seems a good idea in principle but needs a mite of discussion, since if it's done for one template editors will expect it from all of them (and that would need a hang of a lot of work). Indeed, we had a discussion about such templates fairly recently at WP talk:WSS and decided it wasn't worth the effort, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what sense is Asia "viable" as an alternative parent for "Hong Kong" types and categories to China/PRC such? Alai 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure if there's a word "more" missing in your question - if you're asking why it's more viable, it isn't - China would still be a better solution, though it's clearly not going to please everyone. if you're simply asking why it's viable, that should be obvious - Hong Kong is in Asia. Consider an analogy to the Kosovo-geo-stub situation - that was deleted and there were complaints that the stubs were initially moved into Serbia-geo-stub, so in the end they wre relovcated to Euro-geo-stub, since at least everyone agreed that Kosovo was in Europe. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I didn't mean more, I meant at all. Is it viable to recategorise Cat:Scottish sportspeople stubs to Cat:European sportspeople stubs or Cat:sportspeople stub, on the basis of Scottish separate participation in the Commonwealth games, in soccer, and various other sports? Would it factor into your determination either way if a ScotsNat editor were making a long-running series of such edits, dismissing attempts to determine consensus, and the subject of a series of ArbCom cases in and around such issues? This isn't a "disputed" situation, as Kosovo is in some senses, this is a "clearly established situation that some people don't like". (And they have perfectly obvious reasons not to like it, but that's not the business of the stub or category system.) Unless the alternative is predicated on the disappearance of the PRC, or a (further) change in the status of Hong Kong, it doesn't seem to me to be viable at all, and on a practical note, it seems tactically unwise to moot compromises with IN's "solutions", while he's not in the mode of accepting compromise and consensus. Alai 12:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's completely irrelevant. Scotland has its own categories because there are enough stubs for those categories to be viable; if there weren't, they would be categorised with the UK categories, since Scotland has been an integral part of the UK since the 1600s and - until recently - had no special political status within it. Hong Kong has only been back as part of China for nine years and had separate political jurisdiction ever since that time. As such, it counts as a specific sub-category of the People's Republic of China. But stubs aren't arranged by means of PRC - for historical reasons within stub-sorting, they are arranged by mainland China, which Hong Kong is not part of. Hong Kong is, however, part of Asia. A better analogy would be with Gibraltar, which - though considered politially part opf the United Kingdom has its own legislature. Gibraltar's geo-stubs are in the Europe geography stubs category, not in the United Kingdom one - as, indeed, were stubs for Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You may be thinking of 1707, or more precisely, 1800, not that the "no special political status" has been strictly true at any point in history. And either our practice is to follow borders of present-day sovereign states, or it's not: the age of the state (or the border) should hardly parameterise such considerations. (And Gibraltar's by no means a better analogy, as it's not a part of the UK at all, it's a British overseas territory.) The number of stubs is certainly "completely irrelevant", since where to upmerge, and where to categorise are exactly symmetrical questions (which is why I asked it in the form I did). (That we have two "votes" to ignore the size guidelines in this instance is another matter.) What're these "historical reasons"? That Instantnood unilaterally reinterprets and rescopes any "China" or "PRC" subtype as "Mainland China", regardless of any existing consensus, structure of other categories, permanent or otherwise, or much else? I'm not aware of anything that requires any vast amount of re-sorting effort, so I'm not at all clear why we'd be beholden to "history", of that sort or otherwise. Alai 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hong Kong has always been having teams separate from *any* China teams. Scotland does not have its own Olympics participation. Scotland and the U.K. is not the same as Hong Kong and the P.R.C. after 1997 or Hong Kong and the U.K. before 1997. - Privacy 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point. The point is the size of the category, which is too small to be an effective stub category. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 October 2006 (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.

(responding to user:Alai's comment at 02:09, October 4) I did not " unilaterally reinterprets and rescopes any "China" or "PRC" subtype as "Mainland China", regardless of any existing consensus, .. ", and there are other topics having separate stub types for mainland China and Hong Kong. As a matter fact, most of those stub types titled China are not intended to cover Hong Kong and Macao, as reflected by their actual application that they're almost never tagged onto Hong Kong and Macao stubs.
If stub types were to be sort according to present-day sovereign states, Gibraltar and other British overseas territories belong no where, since they're not sovereign states, nor are they regarded as part of the UK. Although separate teams in football and to Commonwealth Games, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales do send one single team to Olympic Games – that's not the case for the People's Republic of China. There's obvious no valid reason to merge the Hong Kong (and Macao, if there will be any) sportspeople categories with that for the rest of the PRC. — Insta ntnood 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are still missing the point. We agree that Hong Kong and the PRC are two separate things. That's why there are two separate templates: {{HongKong-sport-bio-stub}} and {{China-sport-bio-stub}}. However, at this time, Cat:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs does not have enough articles to warrant its own category. The template will stay the same and the articles will still use the HK template, but the category will now be Cat:Chinese sportspeople stubs instead of HK. This isn't and shouldn't be a big political deal. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly don't agree they're two separate things. Hong Kong may have more autonomy than a province, or indeed a non-special "autonomous" region, but that doesn't make it not part of the PRC, nor is it clear that "Mainland China" is an entity with encyclopaedic standing. IN, you justify your actions with reference to other stub types, but that's entirely begging the question of my point. How many of those are the result of your actions, rather than any established consensus? I think perhaps we should take this over to a centralised discussion at Wikipedia:Categorization, and settle it one way or the other. Alai 22:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mainland China is certainly not a country by any definition of the word, yet that doesn't mean it has no encyclopædic value, unless to those who're so unaware of the usage of this term in real life. Only one of those stub types was directly the result of my actions. Many articles which the term is used or involved were created with no involvement of mine. — Insta ntnood 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (responding to user:Amalas 13:53, October 11) " We agree that Hong Kong and the PRC are two separate things " - Why should the stubs be fed into the same category then? — Insta ntnood 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]