I'm afraid I don't understand the point of this article. At least some of these towns already have articles of their own, and those that don't, should.
I'm tempted to place this of VFD, but I'd like to discuss it first.
- Rholton 14:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rholton. What I'm trying to do here is create a good article that contains all the information on these towns that is presently in stubs. All the stubs can then redirect to this article. If they weren't just stubs, but proper articles, then there wouldn't be a point. They are not about to become more than stubs though, as I created the stub on Euroa about a year ago and it's still a stub. If some become large articles then I can just have a link to them from this article. It can also link from "list of victorian towns" which names each town. By doing this you will now go to a large article instead of one stub, getting a better overview of the towns in victoria. I'm still working on it, and I hope that you will give me a chance to finish before doing anything like a VfD. Not that that would be necessary anyway, as you can redirect "victorian towns" to "list of victorian towns" if you don't want it to be kept. -- Chammy Koala 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to make a big deal of this. Since you have a plan, I'm satisfied. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. - Rholton 16:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
this is highly non-standard. it will make it difficult for google to pick up on these articles. i understand somewhat the reasoning, but i still think it's best to keep the stubs rather than do redirects. if we must have this page, i think the threshold for redirecting should be a lot lower. i.e. if an article is less than 2-3 sentences then I can see the point, but wodonga is definitely a comprehensive stub verging on an article. clarkk 05:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
kill stubs Guess I'm not the only anti-stub editor.-- Chammy Koala 12:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is now some little time since this article was last edited and it is in a most unsatisfactory state, there is no coherence to the towns selected, the information about them, or any unifying features other than the corner of the globe and the fact that these towns were not articles at the time that this article was written. Are we going to demerge - possibly at the very least into regions - eg towns of the Gippsland Region.-- AYArktos 22:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the point of this article. At least some of these towns already have articles of their own, and those that don't, should.
I'm tempted to place this of VFD, but I'd like to discuss it first.
- Rholton 14:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rholton. What I'm trying to do here is create a good article that contains all the information on these towns that is presently in stubs. All the stubs can then redirect to this article. If they weren't just stubs, but proper articles, then there wouldn't be a point. They are not about to become more than stubs though, as I created the stub on Euroa about a year ago and it's still a stub. If some become large articles then I can just have a link to them from this article. It can also link from "list of victorian towns" which names each town. By doing this you will now go to a large article instead of one stub, getting a better overview of the towns in victoria. I'm still working on it, and I hope that you will give me a chance to finish before doing anything like a VfD. Not that that would be necessary anyway, as you can redirect "victorian towns" to "list of victorian towns" if you don't want it to be kept. -- Chammy Koala 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to make a big deal of this. Since you have a plan, I'm satisfied. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. - Rholton 16:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
this is highly non-standard. it will make it difficult for google to pick up on these articles. i understand somewhat the reasoning, but i still think it's best to keep the stubs rather than do redirects. if we must have this page, i think the threshold for redirecting should be a lot lower. i.e. if an article is less than 2-3 sentences then I can see the point, but wodonga is definitely a comprehensive stub verging on an article. clarkk 05:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
kill stubs Guess I'm not the only anti-stub editor.-- Chammy Koala 12:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is now some little time since this article was last edited and it is in a most unsatisfactory state, there is no coherence to the towns selected, the information about them, or any unifying features other than the corner of the globe and the fact that these towns were not articles at the time that this article was written. Are we going to demerge - possibly at the very least into regions - eg towns of the Gippsland Region.-- AYArktos 22:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)