Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/April/4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 4
[edit]{{Connacht-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
- Delete, per discusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/February#.7B.7BTl.7CConnacht-geo-stub.7D.7D. Consensus there is that since Irish geography is categorised by county, this lone by-province stub type is unhelpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Comment. That's a pretty elastic definition of consensus, BHG. A good argument made by another user at the above discussion is that, by convention, anything that belongs to more than four counties requires a stub that embraces them all. So it's not exactly true to imply that all "Irish geography is categorised by county". While this argument probably does not apply to Connacht, it could to other Irish provinces. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You made that argument at WP:WSS/D, and nobody agreed with you. Just like nobody supported your creation of by-province geographical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I didn't make that argument, Grutness did. I don't know why you keep bringing up categorisation by province; I've already explained that the mutual exclusivity of the geo-stubs renders the comparison inadequate. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't. I simply said that leaving this one province with its own geo-stub would leave a precedent for others. I also made it clear that anything in more than four counties already has a stub type which embraces them all - Ireland-geo-stub - per very longstanding and extremely wide precedent. As such, this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You did say anything that belongs to more than four counties requires a stub that embraces them all. There's no reason we can't have intermediate levels between county and country; other countries do. Wikipedia is one long line of precedents, there's nothing wrong with that. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ireland doesn't have hundreds of counties, it only has 32. That's not enough to need an intermediate level of stub template, particularly for a regional division which is not used for other geograhical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, there are two good reasons why provinces should not be used as an intermediary stage: 1) one of them crosses a national boundary, making it difficult for the purposes of sorting stubs by nation; 2) the provinces of Ireland are not a part of the local government organisation of Ireland. When a country is split by subnational units for the purposes of stub sorting, the administrative units as currently in existence are used for the next level down. As Local government in the Republic of Ireland and Counties of Ireland make clear, counties are the first-level administrative divisions in Ireland. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (whose ancestry, somewhat coincidentally, is from Roscommon).[reply]
- You did say anything that belongs to more than four counties requires a stub that embraces them all. There's no reason we can't have intermediate levels between county and country; other countries do. Wikipedia is one long line of precedents, there's nothing wrong with that. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't. I simply said that leaving this one province with its own geo-stub would leave a precedent for others. I also made it clear that anything in more than four counties already has a stub type which embraces them all - Ireland-geo-stub - per very longstanding and extremely wide precedent. As such, this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I didn't make that argument, Grutness did. I don't know why you keep bringing up categorisation by province; I've already explained that the mutual exclusivity of the geo-stubs renders the comparison inadequate. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You made that argument at WP:WSS/D, and nobody agreed with you. Just like nobody supported your creation of by-province geographical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (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.