The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Postal codes in Canada. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Canada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article practically consists of a template and nothing else Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page has been moved to List of postal codes of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to match the rest of the articles in the series (List of postal codes of Canada: A, etc.), though Postal codes in Canada still has "in". It should be made consistent one way or the other. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 14:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect- article has no purpose, redirect to Canadian Postal Codes--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion doesn't help, as "Canadian Postal Codes" is currently a redlink, and helped me decide to vote "Keep" at first. But the reasoning works better if you were to suggest Redirecting to Postal codes in Canada, which exists. I changed my vote to "Redirect", below. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistake, article should be redirected to Postal codes in Canada.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of the page in question is to provide navigation to the various Canadian postal code lists (eg: List of A postal codes of Canada) since there are too many postal codes to fit on one page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tavix. This is a navigational list to the individual lists of postal codes per letter region. Maybe the page should be renamed, but the purpose is eminently useful. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above as a WP:LISTOFLISTS. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect [was ~~Keep~~] per above. Obviously the page works and is needed. If it were deleted it would have to be recreated to stitch together the pages it links. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Redirect to Postal codes in Canada (or better, specifically to Postal codes in Canada#List of Canadian postal codes) would be a better alternative. The template appears on each of the separate pages that it links to, and there really should be substantially more, else there is no reason to split out the "list" from the main article on postal codes in Canada. I edited at the main article to create a specific target for redirection there. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps it would be useful to write a brief introduction, explaining the location of each postal code (ie - 'Y' if in Yukon), the absence of specific letters (ie - no codes starting with the letter 'O', as it may be confused with the number '0'), and other top-level details. Mind matrix 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mindmatrix, i basically agree, but in fact wouldn't that short explanation work well within a section of the main article on postal codes in Canada. No reason to have separate list-article; Redirect would be better IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC) P.S. I further edited at the main article so that redirect to Postal codes in Canada#List of Canadian postal codes should work as a good target now. Pinging User talk:Tavix, User:Patar knight, User:Jclemens to reconsider their votes. --Doncram (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that a redirect would be the best course of action for this. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ping @Tavix: @Patar knight: @Jclemens: to reconsider their votes as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer keeping it as is, thanks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is navigating to a page titled "List of X" we should generally either redirect them to a "List of X" page or a "Lists of lists of X" page. There's no good reason to force them to load a whole page about the history and development of postal codes, and if they want to find that information, it's prominently linked from the current page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm, well, I don't think anyone is out there searching for a list of postal codes, but that a reader interested in postal codes of Canada would be at the postal codes article, and would not be surprised to see the list included there. Supposing this AFD were closed "Keep" or "No consensus", it would be entirely reasonable and noncontroversial for any editor to redirect it, anyhow, immediately after the AFD is closed, because there is no content in the current article not at the target, and the target provides more context. To any closer, I think it behooves you to consider what decision actually settles something here. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 14
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasonable and high-quality navigation page. It looks different than most, but still a list of lists kind of a thing. I'm not understanding a reason to delete. That it's been written as a template isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doncram above. The content of this page now duplicates the destination of the suggested redirect. I !voted keep on the 2nd AFD for this article because of the rapid relisting; since this has now gone through deletion review and the original close overturned, I think based on Doncram's edits to the destination article a redirect is a better solution.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from 2nd nom
Keep per consensus a week ago. Seriously? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Even so, the keep arguments are unconvincing. Why would we keep a short list if it's already covered in the parent article? ToThAc (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] For navigation to the sublists. Someone searching "List of postal codes in Canada" is going to want a list, so we shouldn't force them to load everything we have on Canadian postal codes and make it harder to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Redirect - all information is already included in postal codes in Canada. If that article didn't exist, I'd say this one should stay and be expanded. If that article didn't already include all of the information on this page, I'd suggest merging this one into that one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Delete It is an extraordinary disservice to readers to publish a manually maintained copy of a government database. This article can NEVER be up to date. Therefore, it will always be wrong. What value does it deliver to a WP reader that a trip to Canada Post cannot? Absolute nothing. Rhadow (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Redirect- to Postal codes in Canada (which is what I meant to say in the first discussion as an alternative to deletions). Although I am surprised we're bringing it up again so soon.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to postal codes in Canada. At this time this page is entirely redundant. This serves as a list of lists and the article contains the same list of lists. But a trout to both HindWIKI, for a non-admin close of a potentially controversial discussion last time around, and ToThAc, who should've just taken it to DRV or asked HindWIKI to undo the close rather than renominate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] delete All the reasons given for deletion are utterly valid (I have to deal with US zip codes at work, and it's even worse than that: the published databases are always full of errors on top of everything else people say), and the main article is never going to include this list for the same reasons, so why redirect them to an article which isn't going to provide what the redirect promises? Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Procedural Close as Keep per Tavix's arguments on the previous AFD, which closed a week ago. Way to soon for this to be re-nominated. If there are issues with the closure, Deletion Review is thataway.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Do that, and this closure will be going straight to DRV. The last discussion, well, it was hardly a discussion at all, and the reason for discussion being brought up now was not discussed then. We're not a bureaucracy, and an article is not protected from examination because the discussion last time around went awry. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Vulcan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from 2nd nom

Keep per consensus a week ago. Seriously? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the keep arguments are unconvincing. Why would we keep a short list if it's already covered in the parent article? ToThAc (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For navigation to the sublists. Someone searching "List of postal codes in Canada" is going to want a list, so we shouldn't force them to load everything we have on Canadian postal codes and make it harder to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - all information is already included in postal codes in Canada. If that article didn't exist, I'd say this one should stay and be expanded. If that article didn't already include all of the information on this page, I'd suggest merging this one into that one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an extraordinary disservice to readers to publish a manually maintained copy of a government database. This article can NEVER be up to date. Therefore, it will always be wrong. What value does it deliver to a WP reader that a trip to Canada Post cannot? Absolute nothing. Rhadow (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- to Postal codes in Canada (which is what I meant to say in the first discussion as an alternative to deletions). Although I am surprised we're bringing it up again so soon.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to postal codes in Canada. At this time this page is entirely redundant. This serves as a list of lists and the article contains the same list of lists. But a trout to both HindWIKI, for a non-admin close of a potentially controversial discussion last time around, and ToThAc, who should've just taken it to DRV or asked HindWIKI to undo the close rather than renominate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete All the reasons given for deletion are utterly valid (I have to deal with US zip codes at work, and it's even worse than that: the published databases are always full of errors on top of everything else people say), and the main article is never going to include this list for the same reasons, so why redirect them to an article which isn't going to provide what the redirect promises? Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close as Keep per Tavix's arguments on the previous AFD, which closed a week ago. Way to soon for this to be re-nominated. If there are issues with the closure, Deletion Review is thataway.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do that, and this closure will be going straight to DRV. The last discussion, well, it was hardly a discussion at all, and the reason for discussion being brought up now was not discussed then. We're not a bureaucracy, and an article is not protected from examination because the discussion last time around went awry. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulcan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural/admin note there are other !votes at the second nomination page that was created before this was reopened and relisted. I have copied them above for further consideration (note there may be some duplicates). Primefac (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigation is provided by the navbox. No need for a redundant permastub. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect Redundant to Postal_codes_in_Canada#Table_of_all_postal_codes, and every subarticle has the navbox on it. Absolutely no utility to keeping this nothingness. Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect, but to List of postal codes of Canada: A, the first actual article in the series. There is no point redirecting people to Postal codes in Canada#Table of all postal codes, which is misnamed. There is no such table there, it's just the same excessively colorized navbox pointing to List of postal codes of Canada: A, etc.
Also do a merger: All of the List of postal codes of Canada: A, etc., articles can be put into a single stand-alone list, and it will still be well under recommended maximum article size. We have tables of contents with a sectional navigation system for a reason. Doing this, with ((Compact ToC)), will also get rid of the ridiculous "My Little Pony"-style rainbow navbox.
Get rid of the huge rainbow navigation regardless: Even without a merger, ((Compact ToC)) should be used; it is explicitly designed to work cross-article for multi-page lists.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If all the separate list-articles for A, B, C, etc. could indeed be combined into one list-article, as User:SMcCandlish suggests, that would solve everything. It would be named "List of postal codes of Canada" I guess. It would allow for elimination of the "rainbow template". In advance, I am not sure if all of the separate list-articles can be combined or not, but there is definitely some savings from removing duplication. (A less nice alternative would be to combine them into fewer list articles, e.g. "Postal codes of Ontario", "...of BC and Alberta and Saskatchewan", etc. or "Postal codes of Canada: A, B, Q, and R" etc.). I will start Draft:List of postal codes of Canada as a draft article right now, and I welcome other editors to edit there, towards resolving this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. From Doncram's draft, it's evident that a single list is WP:TOOBIG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP, and strongly oppose merge - the consensus was "Keep' like a week ago. The list is quite large, and merging all of them together or to the Postal codes page would be quite challenging to manage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update to comment: The material in the list-article is bizarre. I combined all the separate list-articles into the one Draft list-article, simply by appending the main sections. It is pretty large, 634,539 bytes. However, it perhaps can be edited down considerably, e.g. perhaps dropping all the sections for "Most populated FSAs" and "Least populated FSAs" within each letter. It is weird that it is a long list put into a table going across and then down, instead of just one row for each 3-character FSA. And why give the population for just the "Most" and "Least" ones in each letter, why not for each FSA? This is permalink to current, 12/16/2017 version. It could be improved, but currently I think the combo article is better than all the separate ones. --Doncram (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note wp:TOOBIG suggests that articles of size 100,000 bytes should be split, but it is a) outdated relative to computers today, and b) the actual size of the list-article is tiny, perhaps 300 bytes, in terms of readable prose. The guideline states that its "rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means). They apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." So the editing guideline is suggesting this list should NOT be split. --Doncram (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you note the correct rule of thumb, and then arbitrarily decide that it means the opposite of what it says? That's bizarre. There's literally nothing wrong with the way it is now, and you decide you want to add WP:SIZE issues to a logically split list. Mind boggling. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page size tool says the draft list-article has "1006 B (180 words) 'readable prose size'". The guideline suggests splitting a list-article if the number is over 100,000 B. The guideline suggests this list should not be split. Read the guideline, please. --Doncram (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Last I checked, 634k > 100k so a merge is inappropriate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you should read the guideline. --Doncram (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further update to comment. The combined draft list-article contains 1,088 cells (which should all be rows, but are arranged across then down) merely reporting "Not assigned" which can/should all be deleted. That is out of, I think, 2,319 cells in total (there are 2,319 occurrences of "width="). Each cell has width specifications and other formatting control which can/should be deleted if the list is arranged as a normal lookup list. (Note even in the abnormal table organization, total size could be reduced by putting long formatting control text into a mini template call which can be repeated with far less total size, for those who are obsessed by total size as opposed to readable prose size, which is what matters.) It seems feasible to get the list-article total size very far down. I think the imperative should be to delete all the subsidiary list-articles and have a stripped-down single list-article, which may have some merit for providing wikilinks to all the corresponding towns/cities. --Doncram (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete along with its subpages In my real work one of things we have to deal with is distributing the license US zip codes and their associated cities. Even the more or less official list we get is full of mistakes: for example, for ages the official list has said that the town I live in has a different zip code from what it actually has (and they prefer that we use the name of larger city which we are actually at some distance from). There is no way we can maintain an accurate list of postal codes and their associated towns without essentially copying someone else's work—hopefully that of the Canadian Post. I have no idea whether that is even legal in Canada, but I see no reason for us to duplicate information which is surely better gotten from the official authorities. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda wonder that myself. All 18 of the component list-articles provide statement: "Canada Post provides a free postal code look-up tool on its website,[3] via its mobile application,[4] and sells hard-copy directories and CD-ROMs. Many vendors also sell validation tools, which allow customers to properly match addresses and postal codes. Hard-copy directories can also be consulted in all post offices, and some libraries." This webpage at Statistics Canada is source for all the 2006 populations, is a nice normal-type lookup list. It doesn't provide the names of cities/towns corresponding to each code though. --Doncram (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to postal codes in Canada, which contains this exact information. That makes this a fork of sorts... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Postal codes in Canada as the template is already there; the subpages can be kept. ansh 666 03:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Postal codes in Canada. ·•·1997 kB 03:56, 22 December 2017 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.