![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The result of the debate was create.
And here's part two! I propose that these stub templates be created and upmerged to their province categories until such time as their articles number 60+.
The result of the debate was create.
Howdy folks - I've been sorting these by province, and it has become painfully clear that many of the districts within those provinces need their own stub templates, if not categories. The complete list is in my sandbox; here are the logical first choices for templates and categories. The number after each district is the number of articles currently marked as stubs.
|
|
|
|
The result of the debate was no consensus.
I propose that the remaining PRChina stubs be merged or renamed into the corresponding China stubs. This would result in one simplified tree of “China” stubs paralleling the categories tree, and avoide the need to consider whether a stub should be “PRChina… “ or “China ….”
At present there are “PRChina” stubs for building and structure stubs, geography stubs and transport stubs with subcategories. And while China media stubs and China sports stubs are just “China” they are confusingly subcategories of “People’s Republic of China” stubs. It appears that "PRChina-media-stub" actually generates “China media stub”. Similarly "PRChina-sport-stub" actually generates ”China sport stub” Hugo999 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the debate was update coming.
Hi all - I notice that four Nepalese geo-stub categories and templates are based around old national subdivision Zones that haven't existed since 2015. I suggest that these be smerged in with the existing (and correct) province stub types, and we see from there whether any districts have enough stubs to separate out (which is quite likely). Grutness...wha? 04:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the debate was create.