Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2007/August

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 13 August 2007 (→‎Czech Republic geography stubs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

August 9

Czech Republic geography stubs

I propose merger (redirection or deletion) of these two, because: Chrudim District and Pardubice Districts are a Districts of the Czech Republic. It is a second-level administrative subdivision of the country which is (from 2002) not fully used. Competences of districts are now low and districts became, let's say, traditional matter. Primary administrative subdivision of the country are Regions. We have stubs for all of them and they are just perfectly sufficient and more transparent. - Darwinek 12:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of stubs, this makes sense. If the districts are no longer used, it might be worth deleting these templates altogether. Has any new system been put in place to replace districts at the sub-region level? If so, that would be the logical thing to base stubs on if and when there are too many in a Region... Grutness...wha? 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support for the merger - These stubs are real unecessary. For the purpose of helping editors find articles-stubs the region-based stubs are sufficient. To show the descending structure of administrative units Categories are, IMO, a better means. I would only support keeping those stubs if there were an active project focused on the appropriate district or whatever, which doesn't seem to be that case. – Caroig (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These already are upmerged. It strikes me that getting rid of these entirely would just mean additional, duplicated work for us if and when at some future point in time, someone throws up their hands in horror that the regional-level categories are excessively large. (There seems to be a sudden trend of such un-sorting nominations, but at least this one's in the right place: last time, someone proposed deleting a category at /P, and after denying he was proposing a deletion, deleted it himself as a "speedy". All perfectly clear...) If I understand you (and the corresponding articles) correctly, these have not been abolished, and are still sub(sub)divisions of the country, and until such times as they are, and are replaced with something else, they'd be how we would make such a re-split. As they're upmerged, they don't effect the utility of using the category in the meantime. Consequently, oppose as all-downside, no-upside. Keep as upmerged templates, or failing which (though I can't think why), as redirects. Alai 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that - as Darwinek pointed out - the district subdivision scheme is not really used in the Czech Republic. If there is a better way of subdividing the regions, then it would make sense to use that rather than districts. And if that is the case, these templates become redundant. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently, there isn't. (Unless you fancy villages vs. towns, landforms, etc...) I don't follow what's meant by "not really used": these are still the subdivisions, as far as I can see, whether or not they have reduced significance, powers, etc. (I'll remind you that we've recently split two German states by subdivisions that have been abolished (but not replaced).) Unless and until they're abolished, and replaced with something else, deletion of these would just be unsorting, for the sake of unsorting. Why? Alai 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmm. I take your point. I'd misunderstood and thought that something new must have taken their place. In that case, I'm also less inclined to delete them. They are, as you say, upmerged, so it's hardly going to cause extra category sorting. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary hierarchical level in Asian geo-stubs

This is a follow-up to a comment I made at W talk:WSS/P: With almost every country now having its own geo-stub template, I'd like to propose simplifying the Asian geography stub hierarchy by removing three subcontinental stub types that have largely outlived their usefulness -

Central Asia is the most straightforward. It has no template, and every stub in it is within one of its six nation-specific subcategories. "Central Asia" is a fairly amorphous term anyway - some definitions include parts of Russia - others exclude Mongolia. deletion of this will need no redirecting of templates and will only save effort all round.

Southeast Asia is also a moderately vague term with several definitions. Currently this category contains fewer than 80 stubs, all but about three of which are either marked ith Brunei-geo-stub or Timor-geo-stub - the two remaining countries in the region that have not yet reached threshold. These templates can be redirected easily enough to Cat:Asia geography stubs, as can SEAsia-geo-stub.

Middle East is also fairly vague as far as its definition is concerned, though probably it is a stronger candidate for retention - I've basically added it here as much as anything to test the waters and "complete the set". Currently this category contains fewer than 120 stubs, all but a handful of which are either marked ith Bharain-geo-stub, Kuwait-geo-stub, or Qatar-geo-stub - the three remaining countries in the region that have not yet reached threshold. These templates can be redirected easily enough to Cat:Asia geography stubs, as can MEast-geo-stub.

So, to sum up - strong delete for the Central Asia category; moderate delete for the Southerast Asia one (with redirection of templates) and weak to mild delete of the Middle East one, with redirection of templates. Grutness...wha? 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the 'vagueness' issue: why aren't we using the UN geoscheme names and definitions for these subdivisions (if kept), and indeed, throughout? Alai 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been suggested in the past, but we've never done much about it. And in all of these cases, the articles referring to the regions make no claims that there are set UN definitions. The Central Asia one also shows why, if we were to use UN-related definitions, there would be problems. Though no official UN position is mentioned, this is: The UNESCO general history of Central Asia... defines the region based on climate and uses far larger borders. According to it, Central Asia includes Mongolia, Western China (including Tibet), northeast Iran, northwestern India, Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan, central-east Russia south of the Taiga, the former Central Asian Soviet Republics (the five "Stans" of the former Soviet Union), but also even the Punjab of India and Pakistan. For ease of stub sorting, a definition for a region that includes some parts of countries is not a useful one. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't suggest just any ol' UN-related thing, though, I suggested the UN geoscheme; see the definitional document linked from that article. Alai 03:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/August/9&oldid=150865929"