Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/11

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2010/December

December 11

edit

{{Haringey-geo-stub}}

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 delete


Unused, unproposed, and we're not yet at the stage of requiring separate stub types for individual London boroughs! Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 11 December 2010 (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.

{{West-Africa-politician-stub}} and {{EastAfrica-politician-stub}} (plus redirect {{East-Africa-politician-stub}})

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 delete


All countries in Africa have their own politician stub templates, so Category:West African politician stubs and its Eastern equivalent are largely a parent-only categories. In any case, the standard naming would be {{AfricaW-politician-stub}} and {{AfricaE-politician-stub}}. Strangely, there don't seem to be north, souther, or central African equivalents. Redundant, unused; delete. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2010 (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.

Irish provincial geo-stub templates/categories

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 reorganise by county as suggested


Recently, all of the Irish county-geo-stub types were upmerged. Why all of them were, when several (e.g., {{Cork-geo-stub}}) were well past threshold is a mystery. Also a mystery is why they were upmerged to new provincial, rather than the existing national, level parents. Unfortunately, at the same time, four new provincial level templates were created, all of which are surplus to requirements (since the stubs are all sorted via county-level templates). Also, the creation of provincial level templates has been rejected in the past when it was proposed. Curiously, the edit summary for the deletions and creations reads "per SFD", yet I can find nothing in the SFD log to indicate that these were ever discussed!

One of the four, Ulster, is particularly problematic, because the province of Ulster includes all of Northern Ireland, as well as counties in the republic. As such, its use is somewhat of a red rag (or perhaps green or orange rag) to a potential political bull. Given that some of the county-level categories should not have been deleted in the first place, there's little point in the current set up.

I'd like to propose

  1. the deletion of the following templates:
  2. The re-creation of those county-level categories with more than 60 stubs:
  3. the deletion of the four provincial categories, with the remaining counties upmerged into Category:Ireland geography stubs.

This would leave the national category with only some 600-650 stubs, large but not uncomfortably so (not much larger than two of the current Provincial categories) - and given that many of the other counties are very close to the level for their own categories, it should not be a problem long-term. Several of the other templates can probably be got to 60 stubs, too. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. seems there was discussion at sfd about this - but back then no county had more than about 25 stubs - that is definitely not the case now. Grutness...wha? 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. This is broadly a good idea, and I think that the provincial stub categs were a daft idea, not least for the reasons set out by Grutness .... but:

  1. Why was this proposal not notified at WT:IE?
  2. If the threshold was 60 stubs, why was Category:County Mayo geography stubs not restored? (it would include 88 stubs)
  3. How many other counties with more than 60 stubs have been missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that Category:County Mayo geography stubs and Category:County Wicklow geography stubs have been restored since I asked this question.
Pity, though, not see any response to my question, or even an acknowledgement. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just seen these questions -Mayo and Wicklow were restored because they are now over 60 stubs (at the time of the proposal both of them were in the high 50s - I have checked for further stubs in both, as I also did with Cavan and got them to threshold). None of the other counties have over 60 stubs, though it's quite likely that several others can be massaged to that size - Limerick, for example, has close to 50 stubs, as does Clare, so it should be possible to find several more for each (sadly, my ancestral homeland of Co. Roscommon is way down at 31 stubs...). As to the question about WP:IE, that's a good question, it certainly should have been. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Co. Limerick has also just passed threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, I'm sorry that I missed what you had been doing to expand usage of the county stub tags, and thereby enable the creation of the Mayo, Cavan and Wicklow categs. Don't worry about Roscommon: that county is in the doghouse until either it returns the chunk of Lough Allen it stole from Leitrim, or at least improves its chunk of the R280 from its current abysmal state and gives back O'Carolan's grave. Unless it shapes up, all Roscommon's territory east of the N4 road will obviously be merged into Leitrim soon ;)
Seriously, tho ... while I do admire your great work with stubs, and regret the lack of support you get, it doesn't help to have an under-notified and under-attended SFD. Nor is good to see that what happened isn't what was advertised, even when (as in this case) the outcome is better than the proposal. All's well that ends well, but maybe something to think about for the future? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, mea culpa for the lack of notification - apologies. I did make some comment that it was worth trying to get other counties up to category-standard, though, so "isn't what's advertised" is a little bit harsh. As to Leitrim, I think my ancestors would have something to say about that...! Grutness...wha? 00:18, 27 December 2010 (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/2010/December/11&oldid=1034571326"