Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/7
September 7 edit
Cat:Dakshina Kannada and Udupi stubs 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 upscope
A problem that has lurked unseen for some time - mainly because articles are entered by hand (there is no template!). This one causes a handful of probems, but its size suggests renaming and fixing may be an option.
- Problem 1: It is clearly for geo-stubs - it is a subcategory of Cat:Karnataka geography stubs and almost all of its articles are geographical (there's an odd struct-stub or two in there, too, but I'd say 95% of the articles are geo-stubs). So if kept it will need renaming to Cat:Dakshina Kannada and Udupi geography stubs
- Problem 2: It is for two separate districts within the state. If we were splitting the state up, we would have separate templates (and in the larger cases, categories) for individual districts, not for pairs of them. As such, separate DakshinaKannada-geo-stub and Udupi-geo-stub templates, either feeding to separate categories or upmerged into the Karnataka one, should be used, not a combined category.
- Problem 3: Districts aren't the next level of geographical hierarchy after states anyway - Divisions are. Both of these districts are part of the Mysore Division of Karnataka state.
- Problem 4: The most obvious problem - there is no template.
Size suggests that the best solution here is to upscope this category to Cat:Mysore Division geography stubs, and add in the stubs from the other six districts in that division. It may also be worthwhile splitting the remaining three divisions out of the Karnataka state geo-stub category. And - above all, a template (or one per district) would need to be made. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upscope per nom; on the precedent of other India-geo provincial resplits, favour district templates, and divisional category. Alai 02:43, 7 September 2007 (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.