Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2008/December
Newly discovered, December 2008
[edit]{{Belgaum-geo-stub}} and {{Bagalkot-geo-stub}}
[edit]Two unproposed upmerged stubs for districts in Karnataka, India. Category:Karnataka geography stubs is getting close to the point where we need to think about splitting it completely, and the split that has been done so far on it is by Division (with separate district templates). So on the face of it this seems a reasonable couple of templates to have, and in this case - luckily - there are no problems. I say luckily, because a couple of the others may have had naming concerns if they were simply made in this way (Hassan, for example). May be worth making the other templates for the 30-odd {{Districts of Karnataka}} - but only after proper proposal and check for naming. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have created them as it was non-controversal as already other district stubs for some states of India is already present. Example {{Kollam-geo-stub}} and other subtemplates of {{Kerala-geo-stub}}. As we are gearing up for making articles for lots of inhabiated villages of India, it is important to make district level stub template for all the 611 districts of Kerala.Should the template have the district level cats also instead of state level cats ? -- Tinu Cherian - 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Six hundred and eleven???? This definitely puts a different complexion on things - there are only 14 districts according to Districts of Kerala. If there are 611 districts in Kerala, then it would be ridiculous for them to all have stub templates. Others exist, it is true - but any new ones should still be proposed so that they can be checked before they are created, in case there are problems with them. if there are no problems, it will be straightforward to make them soon after proposal, but having them checked out first will ensure there isn't any need for considerable fixing-up work done later. As to the category, for now they should have the State-level category. If you feel that Division-level categories should be made - and also if you wish there to be new templates - please propose them in the proper way at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, no... Kerala has only 14 districts. But India has around 611 districts in 28 states and 7 union territories. The one that I have created above are of Karnataka state of India. Karnataka has 29 districts. WP:WSS/P says if it is being discussed here, dont create a new proposal there. Division level cats are not useful as it this division is rarely used and not known to many. Some states like Kerala doesnt have the Divisons but has only Districts. So it is more useful if the stub templates are of district level. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Only the Belgaum and Bagalkot ones are technically being discussed here - the rest of this discussion should be at the proposals page. The message at the proposal page is misleadingly worded though (and could be taken to contradioct itself) - I've amended it to what is actually standard practice. Basically it's just to stop someone proposing a template that's already been made and is already being discussed elsewhere - it's not to stop proposals for more similar types (like ones for other districts which haven't got templates yet). Personally, I'd say that district level templates would be useful, feeding into division level categories - if the 611 is for the whole of India it may not be too much of a problem, though it's still a lot of templates. It's still definitely worth proposing them, though, since there are likely to be naming (and possibly other) issues with some of them. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. I believe nobody has any issues with the above stub templates: For the rest of the templates of the missing districts, I will propose them @ WP:WSS/P. With me creating atleast 50 articles per day for each district of India, these templates are highly needed. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Only the Belgaum and Bagalkot ones are technically being discussed here - the rest of this discussion should be at the proposals page. The message at the proposal page is misleadingly worded though (and could be taken to contradioct itself) - I've amended it to what is actually standard practice. Basically it's just to stop someone proposing a template that's already been made and is already being discussed elsewhere - it's not to stop proposals for more similar types (like ones for other districts which haven't got templates yet). Personally, I'd say that district level templates would be useful, feeding into division level categories - if the 611 is for the whole of India it may not be too much of a problem, though it's still a lot of templates. It's still definitely worth proposing them, though, since there are likely to be naming (and possibly other) issues with some of them. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, no... Kerala has only 14 districts. But India has around 611 districts in 28 states and 7 union territories. The one that I have created above are of Karnataka state of India. Karnataka has 29 districts. WP:WSS/P says if it is being discussed here, dont create a new proposal there. Division level cats are not useful as it this division is rarely used and not known to many. Some states like Kerala doesnt have the Divisons but has only Districts. So it is more useful if the stub templates are of district level. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Six hundred and eleven???? This definitely puts a different complexion on things - there are only 14 districts according to Districts of Kerala. If there are 611 districts in Kerala, then it would be ridiculous for them to all have stub templates. Others exist, it is true - but any new ones should still be proposed so that they can be checked before they are created, in case there are problems with them. if there are no problems, it will be straightforward to make them soon after proposal, but having them checked out first will ensure there isn't any need for considerable fixing-up work done later. As to the category, for now they should have the State-level category. If you feel that Division-level categories should be made - and also if you wish there to be new templates - please propose them in the proper way at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem with the templkate - apart from the fact that no-one thought to propose it first. The category's more of a problem, though (are there sixty 16- to 18-year-old linebackers with stub articles? My guess is no). i've proposed the category for deletion, but the template can survive happily enough as an upmerged type, IMO. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- as below, Upmerge template delete category. Waacstats (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Unproposed, but seems a perfectly reasonable addition to the other provincial splits for South Africa that seems to have been missed when we split the others. May need upmerging if it doesn't get to 60 stubs, but it will be close to it at least. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I proposed it here in March 2007, just never got along to creating it. Someone else beat me to it. You even supported creating an upmerged stub, Grutness!--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ergh. So many stub types - so little brain :) (me, not you, that is!) A short Christmas break for me may be in order! Grutness...wha? 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)