Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 37:
Parent is now over 800. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', especially specific show categories that make 60; the genres are looking pretty large and this is undersorted from {{tl|tv-stub}}. [[User:Crystallina|Crystallina]] 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Definitely a good idea. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 46:
Parent is now oversized. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''; the parent is probably also undersorted from {{tl|TV-stub}}. [[User:Crystallina|Crystallina]] 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Looks good. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 62:
:I'll add in the numbers if I get the time. [[User:Stumps|Stumps]] 08:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', and if the poetry award stubs don't add up, how about broadening it to {{cl|Literary award stubs}}? Cheers, [[User:Pegship|<b>H</b>er <b>P</b>egship]] 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. What would the Years in poetry be for, however? '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
**The numerous stub articles in {{cl|Years in poetry}}, such as [[1265 in poetry]]. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 186:
* '''Comment''' Will this replace {{tl|UK-road-stub}} on those pages or be additional? I would prefer it to be additional and if so, would '''Agree'''. [[User:Regan123|Regan123]] 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
**I would think that it would replace UK-road on those pages because London is more specific than UK. [[User:Amalas|<
***The problem that may arise with that is that the roads are part of a national scheme, whereas the streets and squares etc are of a local perspective. I think these need to kept apart, so should this therefore become {{tl|London-street-stub}}? [[User:Regan123|Regan123]] 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
****I think I see. For roads that say, continue outside of London (like an interstate highway here in the US [[Interstate_70|example]]), I could see both a UK-road and a London-road. However, for streets that are only located inside London, a simple London-road would suffice. (I hope I'm understanding you correctly). [[User:Amalas|<
*****I suggest we don't try to make a road/street distinction; it'd just get completely confusing. (I'm sure we still have numerous -street-stub redirects to -road-stubs from a previous sprees by SPUI and/or FoN.) Looking at the current London-stubs, I assume this would be primarily for the likes of [[Gillespie Road]]. Casting around for an example of a trunk road contained entirely in London, I notice that [[A1200 road]] isn't a London-stub at present, so I assume it's not really what the proposer had in mind. I don't much mind how these are scoped to make the distinction, but I'd be against double-stubbing with both parent and child, since that's ultimately to frustrate the size-management aspect of stub-sorting. (We're nowhere near ''having'' to split the UK-roads on size, but I wouldn't bet against it happening eventually.) OTOH, if we're doing this purely in reaction to Richmond-geo-stub, perhaps we should give it a miss for the time being. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
*OK - a few points, since I proposed this:
Line 232:
I suggest we create full-fledged categories for the first three, and keep an eye on the remainder. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I concur. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 337:
{{sfp create}}
Subcategory of {{cl|Luxembourg stubs}} and {{cl|Sports stubs}} as per {{cl|Belgian sport stubs}}, {{cl|India sports stubs}}, and {{cl|South African sport stubs}}. Counting manually in {{cl|Luxembourg stubs}}, one finds 73 suitable stub articles. Add on athletes in {{cl|Luxembourgish people stubs}}, and it's almost certainly pushing 100 without counting under-categorisation. [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
*On a mostly unrelated note, {{cl|India sports stubs}} is the only one listed on [[WP:STUBS]]. On a more related note, there should probably be an upmerged {{tl|Luxembourg-sport-bio-stub}}. [[User:Amalas|<
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 349:
**{{tl|England-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|English football club stubs}}
[[User:Amalas|<
*Support. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 364:
:::There are a lot of oil and gas information that doesn't have articles yet which I'd like to start stubs on. These include things to do with well completions, well logging, formation damage, drilling, surface equipment, artificial lift and so on. Wikipedia really doesn't have a whole lot of depth to its petroleum engineering articles, and I think a stub would help fix that. [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::This page is more for proposing stubs to organize articles that already exist. I would suggest waiting until you have around 60 stubby articles that would fit the "oil and gas industry" classification, then coming back and re-propose. [[User:Amalas|<
:::::60? I have maybe 10 at the moment. I'm not going pretend I have any intention of writing 60 stubs on my own, and I'm not going to go out and collect a list of 60 oil and gas stubs for you (although there are a lot out there, most poorly categorized under other stub categories) because I have things I'd rather do with my time. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of stubs. Are they not supposed to make it easier to organize nascent topics and speed up their progress? Do oil and gas articles not fall under that exact banner? Are you saying there stubs categories all have 60+ articles in them? I have seen stubs on the most innane things which I can't believe contain 60 articles, and yet there isn't even a general "petroleum" related stub. I would have thought that would be the first logical choice over "petroleum companies". [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 394:
I am submitting this proposal for 2 reasons. The first is that the stub is viable (78 Turkish politicians are in the "Politician stubs" category and I am positive some are hiding) and also to avoid the continental problem that Turkey always faces: Should they be European politicians or Asian politicians? Or should they be included in both. I am not sure. But I submit it, anyway.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:If this separate category is made (which I '''support''', BTW) it can have both as parents very easily. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It can be parented by both. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
<s>* '''YES''' I've been waiting for this one! This will leave only Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the main category (for the same reason as Turkey). [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)</s>
<s>**And no problem with giving it two parents if that'll keep everybody happy. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)</s>
Line 424:
****Five listing pages and > 800 articles are more or less the same thing (give or take the high-700s with numerous subcats). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
***Hm. I've always taken it to mean five ''full'' pages. Same as with the bins used for counting on the stub type page, we count in hundreds up to "<800", then the next bin after that is "5 pages". [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 01:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Seems fine. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 431:
I got bored, and I had a map of Samoa nearby. Soo... there are now 41 new Samoa-geo-stubs to add to the 27 that were already on WP. Result - one new country-geo-stub ready for splitting. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 07:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Go ahead. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
*'''Support''' [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 443:
*'''Oppose'''. Country-geo-stubs are divided by subnational region, not landform. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 08:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per Grutness. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
*'''Oppose''' per Grutness [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 468:
*'''Support'''. But do you really need ''separate'' inventor and engineer types? {{tl|inventor-stub}} is just a redirect. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:* Thank you for the information, would not be needing the inventor stub. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. If we're not going to create {{tl|Germany-inventor-stub}}, then it should redirect to {{tl|Germany-engineer-stub}}. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 540:
:''So this is now all about what this project wants and not about helping out [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich|WikiProject Munich]]'' - no, it's all about keeping the munich-stub types in some sort of line with the types used by the various wikiprojects around wikipedia, and also keeping the number of stub types to a reasonable, practical level. Its for this reason we have overarching projects like stub sorting, to help the entirelty of wikipedia run smoothly. Same reason as there are pages like CFD, for cases where one type of category runs contrary to the way others on Wikipedia run. You are actually hurting your wikiproject considerably by continuing to argue for this micro-split of articles, since it will create far more work for anyone involved in your project that having a single stub type would. You have, BTW, shown very little willingness to compromise. Your suggestion for changing from severn stub types to seven stub types with slightly different parameters is hardly a compromise situation, especially since it has been repeatedly explained that the biggest problem is that there is no need for you to have so many stub types in the first place. So far, the main thing have shown is an inability to follow [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Is there any way we could discuss this at one venue? There's talk over at [[WP:SFD]] and here, and this is getting confusing. [[User:Amalas|<
:I agree. perhaps the SFD page is a better place, since there's not much point in proposing a whole range of stubs that have already been created. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This WikiProject is a joke. [[User:Kingjeff|Kingjeff]] 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 776:
At 56 stubs, this double-stubbed upmerged template is surely ready to "go legit", even in the (I'd think unlikely) event there's not another four scuttling around someplace. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I see nothing wrong with it, and I see 61 now. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
*'''Support''' - the actual template name sounds a bit funny, but if it is the norm ie. "Mexico-footy-bio-stub" or "France-footy-bio-stub") then definite support.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="darkorange">Bakaman</font>]] </b><font color = "blue"><sub>[[User talk:Bakasuprman|Bakatalk]]</sub></font> 04:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. looks useful. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 790:
Mooted in passing about a year and a half ago, I can't quite believe we don't have this. Seems to be the only viable subcat for band-stub, which is five articles away from being officially oversized (it already spills onto a fifth listings page). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. We should have this already. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 798:
*'''Support''', given the existing subcat. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I know of at least one editor (G*ett*rda) who is likely to increase this number pretty quickly, too. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Per above. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 860:
Propose {{cl|University of Virginia-stub}} to associate with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia|University of Virginia WikiProject]]. At least 30 articles would fall under this cat. [[User:Jazznutuva|Jazznutuva]] 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:Per the naming guidelines, that would be {{tl|UniversityofVirginia-stub}}, or something similar without spaces, and {{cl|University of Virginia stubs}}. For that and other reasons, better to "propose" something ''before'' creating it. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
*As pointed out on [[WP:SFD]], the project was up at [[WP:MFD]]. It has been closed as ''userfy''. I believe this means that a stub would not be needed. [[User:Amalas|<
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
Line 910:
I think stubs such as {{tl|archosaur-stub}}, {{tl|pterosaur-stub}}, {{tl|ichthyosaur-stub}}, {{|paleo-fish-stub}}, and {{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}} might very well be useful. I'd use them, anyway. There's long been a need for them, as I've been sorting since February.
However, I don't like the idea of {{tl|ornithschia-stub}} or {{tl|saurischia-stub}}, for multiple reasons. One, "Ornithischia" is the correct spelling, not "Ornithschia". Not a big deal, until you think about the number of times that template will be misspelled. Let's keep it simple, if possible. People know how to spell "Dinosaur"; and the word "Dinosaur" has name recognition that S&O simply don't have, while still being a scientifically valid name. Secondly, there are many dinosaurs which don't "shoehorn" easily into Saurischia or Ornithischia: the Herrerasaurs, for example, which may predate the S/O split. In my work on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs]], I've come across dozens of reptiles which are "probably dinosaurs" but which cannot be classified further, based on the material. Less-well known reptiles ("possibly dinosaurs", "definitely not dinosaurs", "indeterminate vertebrates formerly considered dinosaurs") have been sent to various other categories. I'd rather keep the dinosaurs seperate from the other stuff, if possible. And it's easier to monitor the 1,200 dinosaur articles if they're not in a hodge-podge of different stub categories. [[User:Firsfron|<
:My fault about the spelling of ornithischia (you're right, of course - I was going from moderately distant memory). We can leave that in one section for now if it's preferred, but it is getting pretty big at about 580 stubs. If splitting at the next level down is more useful, then perhaps putting the theropods into one subcategory would be useful. remember that I'm not talking about removing the current stub types - simply adding a subcategory or two. As far as the ''non-''dinosaur stubs, another possible subtype which might be useful which i thought of after my intial proposal if there are enough of them is {{tl|Therapsid-stub}}. If Alai's counts are anything to go by, it may not reach the standard threshold, though. I'd say that - barring any objections - it looks like paleo-mammal-stub is definitely a good place to start if there are around 350 of them (including the placental ones). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::Well, I only pointed out the misspelling because I worry about misspellings in the future. If perfectly intelligent users such as yourself have difficulty spelling it, imagine how hard it will be for all of those dino-fancruft people who are constantly adding misspelled content to Wikipedia (and there are dozens every day! :( ). I've got all the dinosaur pages on my watchlist, and you would be surprised at the poor quality of many of the additions. "Dino-bird" isn't even all that bad when considered with other contributions.
::Some questions: Would these templates be used ''in addition to'' or ''replacing'' the existing dinosaur-stub tag? I really don't like the idea of adding a second stub tag. Some of these articles are so short that (1)adding a second tag would mean most of the content would be at the bottom of the page, and (2)since I use pop-ups to determine the size of the shortest articles and list them on the short dinosaur article page, I would need to account for the size (in bytes) of the tags themselves, which is a bit of a pain.
::If they ''replaced'' the existing tag, which category would they then appear in? This is something that worries me, too. The WikiProject Dinosaurs team has just spent the last 10 months categorizing every dinosaur article on Wikipedia. We have articles for every last one on the [[List of dinosaurs]] (four new ones were added today, so I haven't had time to make articles for them yet). Each dinosaur appears in at least three categories: Era, Family, and Continent (except for a few dinosaurs which are invalid; they appear in an Invalid dinosaurs category). The problem with the above proposal is that it doesn't take into account all of the Family-level categories: there's no mention of an Ankylosaur-stub category, no mention of a Stegosaur-stub category, or Hadrosaur-stub category, or Thyreophoran-stub category, or Therizinosaur-stub category, etc, even though these exist as populated categories. One major problem I forsee is that these articles will end up being listed in multiple categories, with short stub articles being listed in more categories than similar articles that aren't stubs, and with no regard for the current classification scheme. We've just spent ten months cleaning up these articles, categorizing them and sorting them, and this sounds like a bit of a huge mess. [[User:Firsfron|<
:::(ec)The general practice is indeed to replace the existing stub tag (other than where there's overlap, rather tha strict inclusion, which doesn't appear to be the case here, give or take the taxonomic uncertainty). So they'd appear in a sub-category of the dinosaur ''stub'' category: all other categorisation would obviously not be changed. I didn't mention the family-level possibilities as they don't appear to be large enough: I did nearly mention the Thyreophorans, at 41, which would have been next on the list, but since categorisation seems to be quite good, and a split isn't at all urgent, it seemed unlikely to be a going concern. However, it's certainly an option to create per-family templates, feeding into broader stub categories. Might be a good idea, as the families are more familiar -- not to say, easier to spell. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:The new stubs would replace dinosaur-stub (or paleo-stub) on many current articles, but both stub templates and categories would still exist as base types. The articles would be categorised into new subcategories of {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}} and/or {{cl|Paleontology stubs}} as an extension of the stub tree, in exactly the same way that {{cl|rodent stubs}} is a subcategory of {{cl|mammal stubs}} which is itself a subcategory of {{cl|animal stubs}}, while {{tl|mammal-stub}} and {{tl|animal-stub}} are still regularly in use. Thus the main {{cl|Paleontology stubs}} would appear emptier in terms of articles, but would have more subcategories (and the same with {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}}). The above propsal doesn't mention ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs or stegosaurs simply because none of these are likely to reach a viable level of 60 stubs - those articles could simply remain marked with dinosaur-stub until such time as there are enough articles to warrant separate categories, or alternatively they could be marked with upmerged templates (that is, stegosaur-stub etc could be made but feed into the main {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}}).This is why my initial suggestion was just for a basic split into the two main categories of dinosaur, with the added comment that subdividing might be useful. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 966:
[[T-schema]]
[[User:Simoes|<b
:There's obviously some overlap, but there's also a difference in terminology, and as many of these articles are ''about'' the terminology... What are you suggesting we do with the existing mathematical logic stubs: merge them en masse? Restub the ones that seem most overlappy? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div>
| |||