Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/30

Stub categories for Cantons of Switzerland

 * 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 keep, possibly look into viability of general stub types for individual Swiss cantons

I propose renaming the following categories and templates:

Upmerged stub tags:
 * /Aargau-geo-stub to /Aargau-stub
 * /BaselCountry-geo-stub to /BaselCountry-stub
 * /Bern-geo-stub to /Bern-stub
 * /Fribourg-geo-stub to /Fribourg-stub
 * /Graubünden-geo-stub to /Graubünden-stub
 * /Jura-geo-stub to /Jura-stub
 * /Lucerne-geo-stub to /Lucerne-stub
 * /Neuchâtel-geo-stub to /Neuchâtel-stub
 * /Solothurn-geo-stub to /Solothurn-stub
 * /StGallen-geo-stub to /StGallen-stub
 * /Thurgau-geo-stub to /Thurgau-stub
 * /Ticino-geo-stub to /Ticino-stub
 * /Valais-geo-stub to /Valais-stub
 * /Vaud-geo-stub to /Vaud-stub
 * /Zurich-geo-stub to /Zurich-stub
 * AppenzellAusserrhoden-geo-stub to AppenzellAusserrhoden-stub
 * AppenzellInnerrhoden-geo-stub to AppenzellInnerrhoden-stub
 * BaselCity-geo-stub to BaselCity-stub
 * Geneva-geo-stub to Geneva-stub
 * Glarus-geo-stub to Glarus-stub
 * Nidwalden-geo-stub to Nidwalden-stub
 * Obwalden-geo-stub to Obwalden-stub
 * Schaffhausen-geo-stub to Schaffhausen-stub
 * Schwyz-geo-stub to Schwyz-stub
 * Uri-geo-stub to Uri-stub
 * Zug-geo-stub to Zug-stub

Rationalle: These stub categories/tags are for the main categories of these cantons, not for the geographical articles about them, For exapmle, has a category named  - clearly not for articles about the geography of Aargau. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't quite understand the rationale behind this - the stub categories may feed into non-geographic permcats, but they are definitely for holding geography stubs and are subcats of . That's simply a case of repointing the categories where possible, not for deleting/renaming them. If separate non-geo types are needed for the individual cantons, that's a separate argument, and is more something for WP:WSS/P than for here. Grutness...wha?  22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Followup - where there are specific geo permcats for these cantons, the stub categories are now children of them. The fact that there are such permcats in several cases is an indication that the problem is as much, if not more, with the lack of geo permcats for the others than any problem on the part of the stub categories. Grutness...wha?  00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * this, in turn, brigs up an other problem - that geo stub categories should be subcategories of general stub categories for the region - for example, should be a subcategory of . And in some cases, the region stub category has a small potential population-  for example,  has a potential population of 96 stubs, and  has only 97 potential stubs. And while the  category tree has only 35 stubs (clearly undersized),  has 58 (borderline undeersized, could easily excede 60 by the time this discussion is closed). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really make that much difference whether there's a non-geo stub parent, and in many, if not most, cases for smaller entities this would simply make far more work for no real purpose. The vast majority of geo-stub categories don't have non-geo stub parents, since most stubs about a place are either geo-specific geo-stubs or far less-specific non-geo stubs. Most of the non-geo stubs which relate, say, to Glarus, also relate to most of the rest of Switzerland. Carry this through to its logical extreme - geo-stubs for places in the US go below the state level to the county level: are you suggesting we should have non-geo stub types for every county in the US as well? I suspect that would be both unwieldy and impractical, simply creating a ton more work for no real reward. It's one of the things about WP's stubs that a huge proportion of them are geo-stubs (as I know to my cost, having been sifting and sorting them for several years). And they can be divided by fine subregion in a way that non-geo stubs often can't - which is why there are so often geo-stub categories by subregion but not generic stub cats . As for the undersized nature of the categories, most of the problem there is that many of Switzerland's geo-stubs don't say whereabouts in Switzerland they are. There are over 500 geo-stubs which simply have switzerland-geo-stub because it would need more information to discover which canton they are actually in... but it's a fair assumption that with an average of 20 per canton, some of those close to threshold could be got well past the target if there's a decent effort to find out where these places actually are. Similar sorts of problems exist with the non-stub tree -, for instance - if you go by that alone, you'd say that it has no potential for a stub category, as it has only 23 articles. Yet it has over 200 stubs! Switzerland's articles (ironic, given that it's switzerland) are not particularly well organised over-all. Grutness...wha?  23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were to create none geo categories for these cantons then the articles would also have to go in the swiss geo category which would push it close to oversized and in need of splitting anyway. And as G says not every geo stub needs a none geo stub parent cat. Waacstats (talk) 00:59, 6 February 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.