Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/January/5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5

[edit]

Finnish provinces

[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 No consensus This has been open for such a long time that it gone stale. It would be better to reopen it again and gain a fresh consensus.

Salix (talk): 09:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Propose upmerging merging with {{Finland-geo-stub}}:[reply]

The Provinces of Finland were abolished on January 1, 2010. If we want to re-split Category:Finland geography stubs, we can create subcategories for the largest regions later on, and it is easier to do this if we preserve the current stub templates as redirects. {{Lapland-geo-stub}} and {{Åland-geo-stub}} can stay, because Lapland and Åland are both regions and former provinces. --Silvonen (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I used the wrong term. I want to delete the categories and change the templates to redirects. --Silvonen (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If they must be replaced flooding the main cat again after hard work to sort it using Finlanf-geo-stub is a return to square one. Eastern Finland and Western Finland etc, it doesn't really matter whether they are entirely formal, government officies still have a similar sort of division so for stub sorting dividing stubs by area of the country is fine even if loosely based given that there is no clear replacement. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a return to square one if we preserve the templates as redirects and create new stub categories for the largest regions. In any case, the coats of arms of abolished provinces will soon start looking weird and outdated in the bottom of the stub articles. There is also a proposal on the WP:WSS/P page about creating a new category for the Uusimaa region or for Helsinki, but a mixture of abolished provinces and current regions would be somewhat confusing. --Silvonen (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I think the structure of Wikipedia should reflect the real world, even if it means hard work. --Silvonen (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, here's a rough indication of the number of stubs in each region (intersection of "Category:Municipalities of X Region" and Category:Finland geography stubs). The real sizes of the regional stub categories would be slightly larger, as not all regional articles are under the municipal categories. As you can see, only Uusimaa and Finland Proper would currently qualify as stub categories.

Uusimaa 220
Finland Proper 134
Northern Ostrobothnia 46
Pirkanmaa 40
Central Finland 31
Northern Savonia 25
North Karelia 22
Kymenlaakso 21
Satakunta 21
Southern Ostrobothnia 21
Southern Savonia 21
Ostrobothnia 18
Kainuu 14
Central Ostrobothnia 12
Päijänne Tavastia 12
Tavastia Proper 12
South Karelia 10
Eastern Uusimaa 9

The question is: Do we want the stub categories to be neatly sized or in sync with the real political geography of Finland? --Silvonen (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: By that count, only two regions would be at a size where they should have their own categories - the threshold for separate categories is 60 stubs. So the main category would probably become considerably larger. Perhaps the thing to do would be to keep the provincial categories for noww and split out regional categories when they become viable - once the nomber of stubs in the provincial categories has dropped then we can phase them out (a bit like what has been done with the subcontinental categories such as Central Asia). Grutness...wha? 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but with one other change be made. Although the Finnish Parliament may have abolished the provinces, they do not have the authority to abolish the concepts of east and west, north and south, even if they wished to. Since the Finns were tidy enough to give three of the four provinces names that describe their positions (East, West, and South), I think that we should keep these category names. We will know that, for example, Category:Eastern Finland geography stubs now refers to "geography stubs for locations in the eastern area of Finland" rather than "geography stubs for locations in the province of Eastern Finland", but there's no need to change the category names. Even the capitalization is correct, as Eastern begins the category name and so remains capitalized. The one exception is the former Oulu province. Fortunately this erstwhile entity sits fair athwart the middle of Finland, so therefore I propose
Is this OK? This seems like the best solution, and so if there are no objections, could someone please close on this basis? This has been open since the snow was deep, and keeping a category that refers to "Oulu Province" is obviously out of the question. Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to build a consensus! Unfortunately, the name Category:Central Finland geography stubs is not OK as a replacement for Category:Oulu Province geography stubs, because Central Finland has another meaning: it is one of the regions of Finland (located south of the former Province of Oulu). And what images would we use in the stub templates? The short-lived provincial coats of arms are not a good alternative in the long run. --Silvonen (talk) 17:55, 28 June 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.

Various Irish geo-stub 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 Switch to the province based sorting. Ruslik_Zero 17:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Over the past couple of years, it seems like a lot of irish counties have surreptitiously gained their own geo-stub categories. None of them were proposed, several of them are ill-formed, and seven of them are below threshold. Of these, five are considerably below threshold - in two cases less than 20 stubs. These five categories should all be upmerged unless they can be got to the 60-stub level pretty quickly. Given that I've just stub-sorted all those simply marked with Ireland-geo-stub, which seems difficult, especially since some of the very small ones have been around for two years or more without getting close. Upmerging will not overly tax the main Ireland geo-stub category - it will only take it to 480 stubs. The remaining two (Wicklow, 45 stubs, and Clare, 46 stubs) are also low, but not as desperately so as these five. The five county categories I'm proposing deleting (with reupmerges of the templates) are:

Grutness...wha? 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I note also that N.I.'s Category:County Armagh geography stubs has dropped to about 50, and it definitely used to have over 60 stubs... it could be that the nominated categories also used to be larger but are now no longer really viable as separate categories. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connacht (285 total): Galway (112) · Leitrim (19)· Mayo (84)· Roscommon (30)· Sligo (40)
Munster (496 total): Clare (46)· Cork (170) · Kerry (76)· Limerick (44) · Tipperary (130) · Waterford (30)
Leinster (489 total): Carlow (18)· Dublin (143) · Kildare (25)· Kilkenny (33)· Laois (23) · Longford (15)· Louth (27)· Meath (33)· Offaly (31)· Westmeath (26)· Wexford (62)· Wicklow (53)
Ulster (Ireland, 116 total): Cavan (27) · Donegal (67) · Monaghan (22)
Ulster (NI, 551 total): Antrim (97) - Belfast (68)· Armagh (51) · Fermanagh (74)· Londonderry (120)· Down (71) · Tyrone (70)
With Ulster split into Northern Ireland and Ireland. Fairly good distribution.--Salix (talk): 23:05, 30 August 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 maritime-stub}} (redirect)

[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 Rename {{Ireland-water-transport-stub}} to {{Ireland-maritime-stub}} to match the category and delete all redirects. Ruslik_Zero 07:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


While sorting the irish stubs, I found that {{Ireland-water-transport-stub}} has sprouted quite a number of redirects, several of which defied stub naming conventions. Most of those were speediable (unused, with no sign they'd ever been used), but this one is in use - mlargely for bio-stubs which shopuldn't be marked with this stub type anyway. The stubs should be re-marked with the correct stub (whether that is {{Ireland-water-transport-stub}} or another stub type) and them this redirect should be 'deleted'. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave {{Irish maritime-stub}} alone. By all means remove the redirect if you wish. But please leave {{Irish maritime-stub}} alone. WP:IMAR needs a way to keep track of its stub articles. That way they might eventually get some attention. Without it they might not - or more probably an alternative mechanism will have to be identified. ClemMcGann (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? {{Irish maritime-stub}} is the redirect! The stub template is at {{Ireland-water-transport-stub}}, as explained above. In any case, why is a WikiProject using a stub template to sort its articles? that isn't what they're for - why aren't you using a talk page assessment banner to sort all your articles? (see WP:STUB#Stub types, WikiProjects, and Assessment templates). Grutness...wha? 01:06, 6 January 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2010/January/5&oldid=1077606225"