Talk:Carolina Parishes

Proposal

No objection, of course. I don't really think the {{proposal}} is really warranted here, Ferko. Since Carolina is yours to work with now, you can do with it as you please. I'd say, use the tag only where Carolina really starts interacting with other NAL provines or countries. I'm sure noone will object against your subdivision into parishes.

There's one other thing. Please avoid making individual pages for each parish, which contain almost no info at all. Looking at a page like Abbeville Parish, Carolina, I see a lot of empty headers, and the only info contained in it is the capital. Wouldn't it be much nicer to add these capitals to Carolina Parishes and put it in a nice table or something?

Quoting from IBWiki:Guidelines:

A few remarks regarding Very Short Articles:

1. Try to avoid creating them when it is easy to have the same text in another, existing article, where it will probably look better anyway.
2. An article must at least contain some information. Don't create articles, which don't contain info can't be found elsewhere and that probably won't ever get expanded either. That means, articles like "X is a province of Y", "X is the capital Y", "X was a king of Y" really shouldn't be here, unless you indend to flesh them out soon. In such cases, it is better make a list of provinces or kings on the country page, or when the latter becomes too long, create an article "Provinces of country X" or "Kings of country X".
3. Also, avoid creating pages that contain only a template.

Articles like the ones mentioned under #2 and #3 will be at some point be submitted for deletion, if they haven't been expanded after a long time. Remember, a smaller number of nice-looking, well-elaborated pages looks a lot better than hundreds of pages with little or no information at all. Pages like that make us look bad in the eyes of the occasional visitor, while they are of little or no value to ourselves.

Some two years ago, we deleted hundreds of pages of that type that Carlos had created. I really hope that won't be necessary this time. If there's a story to be told about a certain parish, then by all means go ahead and make a page for it. But please, remember that this is not Wikipedia. If there's an article about a certain individual parish, this does not mean articles about all other parishes are warranted as well.

Hope I'm not coming across as a spoilfun! Cheers, —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 01:56, 1 September 2007 (PDT)

I realised that after I'd started, which is why there are only A and some B (maybe C?) that have every parish with its own page; after that, I did them only for those that have information to add into the page besides the capital. Dalmatinac 16:10, 5 September 2007 (PDT)

The only one that seems to contain information worth perserving is Anderson Parish, Carolina and possibly Quewhiffle Parish, Carolina. The others really don't give any info except their capital and in some cases their name *here*. Is it ok if I delete them? I'd also suggest removing from the template the links to parishes that don't have an article and are not going to have one (too many red links). —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 21:56, 5 September 2007 (PDT)

I have taken the liberty to delete the pages about parishes, which really didn't contain any other info than just the capital - info that is already on Carolina Parishes. Those that mention a name being different from *here* I've left for now, but frankly, I think those don't really add anything either. Wouldn't it be better to place that sort of info in a nice table on Carolina Parishes? —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 14:32, 17 September 2007 (PDT)

I'd ask that for the time being you keep the pages that do have the notes on differences from *here* - I've just moved house, and for the foreseeable future I'm not easily going to have access to the papers on which these differences are listed... Dalmatinac 22:19, 17 September 2007 (PDT)