Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February/13

Lower Normandy-geo-stub, Upper Normandy-geo-stub

 * 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 discussion was '''rename templates, deleting current names. May need revisiting at a future date, since this nom became a bit of a trainwreck with various opposing options.'''

Two more misnamed templates, each feeding into what should be parent-only stub cats (if such cats are needed at all - all Normandy geo-stubs are subdivided by departement, so having a separate level between them and Normandy overall seems superfluous). Delete. Grutness...wha?  03:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing nomination to rename to convention-consistent LowerNormandy-geo-stub and UpperNormandy-geo-stub, with deletion of current names, per comments below. Grutness...wha?  08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Normandy is divided between Upper and Lower Normandy! The two have their own capitals, Caen and Rouen. However, the two should be under the Normandy stub, as well as the 5 departments. .--66.254.46.205 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)147}}
 * This still does not answer the point that the stub types were unproposed, incorrectly formatted, and have not shown themselves to be of any use. The categories are far better as parent-only types, as is the case with other similar categories containing child subtypes - every stub marked with these templates could effectively be placed in one or more of the subcategories. As to why someone in New Zealand is deciding what is good and not good, I'm not deciding anything, and my location is irrelevant. I am following the guidelines and precepts of a global WikiProject which attempts to keep some kind of uniformity on stub types across the whole of Wikipedia. That is the reason why stub types are proposed before creation, to make sure that they do not foul up the existing system or create unnecessary extra work. If you had spent as many hours involved with such a project as you clearly have studying sarcasm, you might understand that. Some people have put in over a half a decade into stub work, "dear chap"! Now, again, explain why these stub types are needed, when every stub which uses or could use them could take the département templates, and also explain why they are incorrectly named. If you can do neither, then deletion is still the best option. Grutness...wha?  02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just have a Normandy-geo-stub, since the French government has recently united the two regions.--66.254.46.205 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * — 66.254.46.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It certainly needs either one level or the other, not both. Either we're using Upper and Lower Normandy separately, in which case the templates need at the very least renaming to normal stub standard (and there is no need for a Normandy-stub), or we're using Normandy, in which case they're unnecessary. On closer inspection, it seems that the normandy level is the unnecessary one, unless, as you say, the French government has united the regions (though I can find no suggestion of that in our articles). I'm certainly prepared to withdraw this nomination (or, more correctly, change it to a rename to correct template names) unless there is indication of that merger of regions somewhere. Grutness...wha?  21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, simply too small. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I did not create these two stubs, but I have noticed that they comprise for Lower Normandy, her three departments and articles, for a total of 1826 articles listed. For Upper Normandy, her two departments and articles, for a total of 734 articles listed.  They are therefore very important.  I would definitely vote to keep them.  They are essential!--Chnou (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are all good arguments for having parent categories, but not for the templates - you might equally well say that we an Earth-stub is wothwhile because of the number of places on earth that we have separate stubs for. Only a handful of articles actually use these templates rather than their subtypes, so the idea of parent-only categories with contain only the subcategories is quite reasonable. Note a similar recent proposal to delete SouthAm-writer-stub. Having said that, the nomination was already changed to a rename before you added this, so the point is moot... 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Worth keeping! They have already been populated!--Mont-Joli (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.