Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:People from Quebec stubs
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 16:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Can use Canada affiliated category. --Spinboy 06:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
unofficial voting summary after 20 days: Oppose - 2, Support - 2 Courtland 23:08, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
- Agree in both cases - see arguments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Grutness|hello?
04:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think Quebec is significantly different enough to merit it's own stubs, because of it's different civil laws, language, and the push to secede from Canada. (NOTE: because of Louisiana's different civil laws, it too should have a separate set of stubs.) 132.205.45.148 19:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Disagree. This sets a bad precident. There is a stub category: Category:Utah people stubs which is currently being used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah. This is used to sort stubs for this project. I don't know if Quebec has a project, but I wouldn't want to see the Utah cat up for deletion next... --[jon] [talk] 12:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- General consensus on WSS is that separate categories for stubs such as this are okay as long as there is a WikiProject. There is in Utah's case, so it is supported at WSS. There isn't for Quebec, and, again, general consensus on WSS seems to suggest that division should be primarily by nation, then by occupation if necessary (rather than by nation and then by subregion). Oh, and almost every country in the world has a region that is "significantly different" - stub sorting would get out of hand very rapidly if all of them were given separate stub categories (Nagorno-Karabakh-bio-stub, anyone?) Grutness|hello?
- ok, change significantly to majorly different. I have no problem with stubs cats for Nagorno-Karabakh, the Basque regions, Brittany, Corsica, Tibet, Karelia, Lappland, the Khosian regions, Chinese Turkistan, the Ainu regions... 132.205.94.174 00:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- General consensus on WSS is that separate categories for stubs such as this are okay as long as there is a WikiProject. There is in Utah's case, so it is supported at WSS. There isn't for Quebec, and, again, general consensus on WSS seems to suggest that division should be primarily by nation, then by occupation if necessary (rather than by nation and then by subregion). Oh, and almost every country in the world has a region that is "significantly different" - stub sorting would get out of hand very rapidly if all of them were given separate stub categories (Nagorno-Karabakh-bio-stub, anyone?) Grutness|hello?
- I don't feel particularly strongly about this either way. I can understand the value of a distinct stub category, so that the people who are most knowledgeable about Quebec-related topics have a central location for them. I do, however, have some concern about the way that Liberlogos (who created this) uses categories to create the misleading impression that Quebec sovereignty is already a fait accompli: eg. by filing Quebec-related categories as subcategories of "subject by country" categories (and sometimes reverting the inclusion of "subject by Canadian province" groupings), by removing Canadian categories from individual articles even when equivalent Quebec categories don't exist, etc. Bearcat 20:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 'Delete - there are too many categories already. We don't need to start more for Provinces, Staes, Regions and so on.
- Keep it if there are enough notables from that Provinces, Staes, Regions and so on then it deserves a category.