Category talk:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs

SFD

• (responding to user:Alai's comment at 02:09, October 4 [1]) 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. — Instantnood 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • 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, Category: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 Category: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)
    • 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)
      • 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. — Instantnood 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • You've created several Hong Kong stub types: Category:Hong Kong corporation stubs, Category:Hong Kong buildings and structures stubs, Category:Hong Kong film stubs and Category:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs, at a minimum. Would you like a similar list of your China stub-"rescoping" efforts? Alai 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I didn't create the mainland Chinese stub categories on geography, on building and structure, for instance. The company and film stub categories for Hong Kong were created before their "China" counterparts were created, by individuals who've yet to demonstrate they actually know what's going on. — Instantnood 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't see how any of the above is either responsive, or otherwise helpful. Alai 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • The company and film stub categories for "China" were created ignoring the geography and building and structure precedances. — Instantnood 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Ah, all is clear. Because there was a half-hearted agreement to do that at WSS, silence as assent at TFD -- and unanimous opposition at CFD, mind you, then that's binding precedent eighteen months later for you to create and rescope stub categories without reference to WP:STUB, or WP:WSS/P, or WP:SFD. Never mind that's from so long ago that the current stub proposal and stub deletion/renaming pages didn't even exist. OK, perhaps we should SFD those two, too, if their existence is your justification for these actions. (Not that they're even consistent with it, mind you.) Alai 03:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • " Never mind that's from so long ago that the current stub proposal and stub deletion/renaming pages didn't even exist. " - Creation of the mainland China geography stub type may predate creation of SFD, but did it predate WSS/C (from which WSS/P was branched out)? The mainland China building and structure stub type was created in February 2006. Did SFD and WSS/P exist by then?   " OK, perhaps we should SFD those two " - Why would SFD be necessary with the company and film stub types, given the fact that their actual application is crystal clear?   " and unanimous opposition at CFD " - Where? — Instantnood 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • (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? — Instantnood 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't think it is a political deal, but it is a problem. These people played for Hong Kong in sports. But some people have never had Chinese or P.R.C. citizenship, and may not be Chinese by blood. Some had played for Hong Kong only before the 1997 handover. They have never played for Hong Kong after that. If number is a matter, you have to reckon that the category has always been growing after it was created. - Privacy 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • "By blood" has nothing to do with it; they represent Hong Kong, and Hong Kong is part of the PRC. Alai 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you know when Hong Kong became part of the P.R.C.? Are you sure all of these people played for Hong Kong after 1997? Even if they do, are they eligible to represent the P.R.C.? If they never played for Hong Kong after 1997, why put them to the P.R.C. category? - Privacy 20:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • "Yes", "no", "don't know", and "this has been discussed at length", respectively. Alai 20:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't agree it was discussed and agreed. It is simply your preference. - Privacy 13:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
          • That hits one of the raw nerves. If she/he had never represented Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, and is neither a Chinese by ethnicity nor by citizenship, IMO there's little valid reason to categorise them into the PRC or China category. — Instantnood 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The one simple reason: they are stub templates and it is convenient to do so. Users who read the article will find out about the people and their citizenship regardless of a stub template. SchmuckyTheCat 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • At this stage of your Wikipedia career, Instantnood, I'm not sure it's your raw nerves you should be primarily focusing on. It's a goal of the stub category system to be a sane approximation to the permanent category. As most people would consider Hong Kong to be a appropriately placed as a subcategory of the PRC, and as this (entirely unproposed) stub type was significantly undersized, the stub guidelines pretty clearly imply what should happen here. Alai 23:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Who are the " most people "? Who would be looking for players who've only played for Hong Kong before 1997, not Chinese by ethnicity and holds no PRC citizenship at category:Chinese sportspeople stubs? You've simply ignore the fact that you were the only person to agree during SFD to upmerge it to the PRC category. As for its size, you must have noticed this category has been growing since it was created (and there are in fact many more underpopulated stub categories). — Instantnood 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • I keep forgetting we have to consult widely on whether we should categorise parts of states, as parts of those states, if you happen to decide otherwise. OK, let's consult widely. Just don't then complain if you find at the end of the process that the result is the same, and there's even less "community patience" for this guff. If people happen to looking specifically for Hong Kongers, they still have the template. This "fact" a) isn't a fact, and b) doesn't pertain to this discussion, as far as I can see. Or are you going to tell me that I'm now an interested party, and should wait indefinitely for someone else to deal with it? (Though not Grutness either, I assume.) And yes, I've noticed the usage has increased: no problem with with the stub size guidelines that can't be fixed by padding with a few one-line stubs, eh? Give me a while to deal with some of the oversized stub categories, I'll get around to more of the undersized ones in due course, never fear. Alai 03:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Hong Kong had long been part of China before 1841/1860/1898, and has been, as stipulated in its constitutional document, "an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China", since 1997. Yet before 1997 Hong Kong was a British dependent territory (and earlier a crown colony), and there were sportspeople who had no connection with China and/or the PRC but had played for Hong Kong. In what way are they Chinese in any sense? It was for the same reason the community have had no objection towards interlinking category:Chinese people stubs and category:Hong Kong people stubs, instead of subcategorisation.

                      " If people happen to looking specifically for Hong Kongers, they still have the template. " - Right, they still have the template. By the same logic these stub articles can be feed into whatever category, since people will still be able to find them out by way of the template anyway.   " This "fact" a) isn't a fact " - It is, unless if you don't bother to read the SFD discussion again.   " Give me a while to deal with some of the oversized stub categories, I'll get around to more of the undersized ones in due course, never fear. " - Then take care of the oversized ones first. Give everybody a break. — Instantnood 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

                      • Give me a break: I really am seeing less and less reason to take any more of this guff from you. If you're going to ignore processes, guidelines and multiple probations, you have very little basis on which to expect people to let them all slide indefinitely -- much less to uncivily demand such consideration. I suggest you reread the SFD, and a) what Grutness suggested doing, and b) what his preference for where to do it to was. No, the above is not "the same logic". We don't upmerge templates when they're not undersized. I'll refer you once more to the stub guidelines: WP:STUB. They're sportspeople of a territory which is now part of the PRC. Clear enough? Alai 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm dredging my memory to remember the reasons for the "mainland China" rather than "PR China" split, but one thing I do recall from the discussions of it was that creating a minor incosistency with Hong Kong actually saved us from having to deal with a major area of controversy - that is, Taiwan. By classifying Hong Kong and Macau as separate from "Mainland China" allowed us the precedent to do the same with Taiwan, which would otherwise have fallen into the vague area of places with disputed governance. Having Hong Kong listed separately has never been an ideal solution, but the way it is dealt with in the geography stubs is worth noting - there is a People's Republic of China geography stubs category with no dedicated template - it simply houses two categories for Hong Kong and Mainland China. There is nothing to mitigate against the same thing being done in other, similar circumstances, provided that there is enough viable population for a separate Hong Kong category. It is at that point of consideration that we start hitting problems with categories like this one. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Macao geography stubs can perhaps illustrate part of the picture. They were, interestingly, placed under category:Asia geography stubs, until it was possible to create a template that feed into a shared category. Nevertheless, geographical features don't move or die as people do. A hill in Portuguese Macau will still be a hill in the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. A Portuguese governor of Macau was a person related to Macao, but he would not be related to China and/or the PRC unless he had decided to stay there. — Instantnood 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, that does indicate the situation as far as geography stubs are concerned - although you fail to mention that while features do not move, boundaries do. In any case biography stubs use current national boundaries for their categorisation. This saves the problem of having to create stub types for every nation-state that has ever existed. Thus, for example, Mpande receives SouthAfrica-bio-stub, despite having died many years before the modern nation of South Africa coming into existence. Similarly, the Incan chief Huáscar is marked with a peru-bio-stub, despite living in the late 16th century long before any of the present day south American countries existed, and several medieval painters are marked with approriate Italian, Dutch and German bio-stubs despite living in such countries as Venice, Flanders, and Prussia. Grutness...wha? 18:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not too sure about Huáscar and Mpande, but yes, people like Ludwig van Beethoven, Antonio Salieri, Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus are generally considered German, Italian and Dutch. I don't, however, think the people affected by this SFD are in anyway associated with Chinese and/or the PRC, except through the place where they (once) reside(d). It's much easier and far less controversial to associate geographical features with where they are located according to present-day borders, than to do so with people. — Instantnood 19:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that it's not Mainland China as opposed to the PRC, it's MC as well as the PRC (essentially redundantly). It's therefore not exactly an iron-clad precedent (setting aside the confusing processes and weak consensus for it in the first place) that whenever a "China" stub type is created, to assume "ah yes, that must obviously mean specifically Mainland China", as opposed to "China in general", or "the entire PRC". Alai 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Hong Kong has not been part of China for a hundred years or so. As I understand it, separate categories helps prevent troubles. It will also follow earlier examples. Mainland China is not the same as the P.R.C., and so it is not redundant. The former is a subset of the latter. For post-1895 (the year Taiwan was ceded, different bits of Hong Kong were ceded and leased in 1841, 1860 and 1898) stubs, only mainland China ones are marked with China stub types. - Privacy 13:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why are we deleting this category? Passer-by 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

re: above SFD comments

I have restored the above comments to the appropriate SFD page in case this category gets deleted. Please do not remove comments from an SFD discussion. It is okay to copy discussion here (actually a link to the discussion would be better), but do not simply move them. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

re: category deletion

We are deleting this category because it is too small. There are not enough articles to warrant its own stub category. We will still keep the template {{HongKong-sport-bio-stub}}, but it will now be categorized into Category:Chinese sportspeople stubs instead of this one. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)