Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/30

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2007/March

March 30

edit

{{Pune-geo-stub}} / Cat:Pune city 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 upscope/rename to PuneDistrict-stub; upmerge


Unproposed, and - quite frankly - a mess. The template makes it clear it's for geography articles, as does the wording of the category, but the stubs conained in that category have only a few geography articles. the rest are history, biography, education, and organisation stubs. The name of the category is non-standard as well. I've no doubt that Maharashtra-geo-stub needs splitting, but debate is needed on just how to split it - separating out the largest city is not usually the way that is done, since it tends to lead to the possibility of several city categories and an "everything else" category. And if the geo-stub needs splitting, it needs to be ensured that it is indeed geography articles that are split out - not this mish-mash. The other option would be a standard stubfor the city ({{Pune-stub}} / Cat:Pune stubs), with articles double-stubbed according to whether they are geo, bio, or whatever with their respective India- or Maharashtra- types. That wouldn't solve the problem of Maharashtra-geo-stub's size, but it would make for a far more sensible category and template name. Whichever, the current combination of names and scopes simply isn't acceptable. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest upscoping to Pune district, PRODing the many articles that simply say "A locality in old city of Pune." (I kid you not), and retagging all those that manifestly aren't geos (and/or aren't stubs), and seeing if we're left with anything much. If not, then upmerge (does Maharashtra have divisions?). In the unlikely event there's 60 in the category in a week, then rename to Cat:Pune district geography stubs. Alai 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Guys, Very Sorry for not proposing this stub before creating it. Frankly I was not aware of this procedure. When I created article Pune Neighborhoods I felt that a stub regarding Pune was needed. All articles that Alai pointed having only "A locality in pune city" were created by me and subsequently stubbed so that other users help it grow. I screwed up with name of this stub. It shudn't be -geo-. I blame it to my ugly habit of ctrl C and ctrl V. Please rename it whatever you feel right.

Now I have proposed this stub in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/March. I have loosely justified the necessity of this stub to create a comprehensive information of City of Pune. And ready to face questions here


spacejuncky 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting it. Alai is talking about Pune District, I am for a stub for Pune City only. There is lot that can be written about Pune city itself. Actually the name of the stub is misleading it should be Pune-City-Stub and not Pune-Geo-Stub. spacejuncky 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
x-geo-stub is our naming convention for geographical location articles. If you want it to be about Pune City, then perhaps a {{PuneCity-geo-stub}} would be better. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope the template as per Alai, and create at least upmerged geo templates for the other four divisions of Maharashtra beside Konkan and Pune. Once that mess is sorted out, see whether a generic {{Maharashtra-stub}} is viable. I can't see the sense in having a generic stub for the city when there isn't even one for the state it is in. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rescope sounds viable. Yes, Spacejuncky, loads of stubs could be written about the geography of Pune itself, but for the reasons I gave in my nomination, individial city-specific stubs are far less appropriate than ones for the city and its surrounding district. It's not like stubs on the geography of Pune city would get overwhelmed by stubs on Pune District - and what's more, as pointed out, a start has been made in splitting Maharastra's geo-stubs by district anyway. I'd vertainly favour a Pune-geo-stub for Pune District along those lines, and with clearing out the non-geo-stubs, even if upmerged until we're sure of the number of stubs - a city-specific geo-stub, though, I'd be less happy with. A separate Pune-stub for non-geographic items could also still be possible if it also looked like getting close to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really getting what you guys are arguing about. What I see the reason behind what I feel confusing comments from you all is the fact the name is Pune-GEO-Stub. I screwed with the name, it is very misleading and I am sorry for that. When I created this stub there was no intention of creating stub for Pune geography or Pune division/district geography. My only intention was to have all pune city related article stubbed so that more volunteers chip in to expand those article. When stubbed any enthusiastic wikipedian can find that all pune city related articles at one place. This is what I want to convey, now whatever you decide its your decision. I am not keen in helping in creating stubs for all six division of Maharashtra as suggested, because frankly I am not able to see it. Plus I will be on short vacation so wont be logging in for next 7-10 days. :)

spacejuncky 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole thing a big mess. 1. The {{Konkan-geo-stub}} text is misleading. (Mumbai is part of the Konkan but not entirely). Secondly, I think it would be a good idea to have city-based stubs. Keep a criteria of the largest five cities in the state OR those that have a population of 1 million+. The reason I say so, is that if we have to create a Mumbai wikiproject, it would be easy to check and see which all articles need to expanded. Let's pause on the district-level stubs for now until a uniform solution in consultation with WP:INDIA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a precedent for this: see {{NYC-stub}}. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nichalp, this is what I wanted to say, we need city based stubs.

spacejuncky 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Konkan-geo-stub}} was created as an upscoping of {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} as a result of a previous SFD, but it appears that only the category, but not the blurb text was changed. The blurb text has been changed to match the category. Thanks for pointing out the problem and it has been fixed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the stub category, I'd have to say that part of the problem is that spacejuncky was very scattershot in applying the stub marker. Take for example Baji Rao I. Leaving aside the fact that it isn't a stub article (there was an existing stub marker that I've removed as well). There's the fact that his notability is not restricted to the city of Pune. He's notable for a lot of other things done in a lot of other places. As such a Pune stub marker was too narrow in scope for that article. If it had been a stub article, a {{Maharashtra-stub}}, if it existed would have been appropriate, but not one for the city of Pune. Similar objections exist for the article Battle of Khadki as it is not a stub and it took place outside the city of Pune, albeit nearby. Kirkee is a stub article, but again, based on the text of the article, it is not inside the city of Pune and as such does not fall with the scope of a stub restricted to just the city. We don't include suburbs in the scope of our existing city stubs and there is no reason why Pune should be treated differently. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine, I agree on your argument about Baji Rao I and Battle of Khadki. I indeed made a wrong decision there. But Kirkee is an integral part of Pune City, it comes within Pune Municipal Corporation limits. And why should suburbs cannot be considered a part of city when city's municipal corporation considers it within city limit. We have example on Mumbai, If we remove its suburbs from its description there is nothing to read about it. Pune City is not worth mentioning without its suburbs (moreover kirkee is not even a suburb, it is a part of city)

spacejuncky 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not knowledgeable about the area, I can only rely on what the text of the article says, "Kirkee lies just north of the city of Pune". If the article is wrong then by all means fix it. Mumbai is a special case in that its suburbs form a distinct political entity, the Mumbai Suburban District. If similarly there were a Pune City District and a Pune Suburban District, I could see treating Pune similarly. In this WikiProject we have a strong bias towards recognized political borders so as to minimize subjective decisions on where to set boundaries. If the Pune metropolitian area is contained within Haveli Taluka (the Pune article indicates that the city proper is in that taluka, but does not indicate whether its suburbs all are and there is no Wikipedia article on Haveli Taluka), I could see using that as a basis for the boundary for a Pune stub type, but if not, then the next larger suitable official political boundary would appear to be Pune District. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I deleted every article within this category which had three words and the stub template. --Sn0wflake 23:24, 1 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/March/30&oldid=1084292207"