Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Subst: {{unsigned}} (& regularise templates) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 18:
"Nazi Germany" and "German World War II" have a considerable semantic overlap and both contain Nazi topics. "Nazi Germany" contains many WWII biography stubs. I'm not sure how this big mess should be sorted out. Any ideas? My main problem is where to stub-sort SS officers. As noted by Kirill Lokshin in a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nazi stubs|previous discussion]] in the wikiproject Military history, [[:Category:German military personnel]] includes WWII figures. [[User:Wipe|Wipe]] 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
: I thought this would be a problem at the time the German WWII category was made, and don't remember ever hearing of a WWII bio stub type before. I'd double-stub or even triple-stub with the other three. Ah - I've just discovered that the WWII-bio-stub is an "illicit creation" and needs listing at WP:WSS/D - and possibly SFD. As you've implied in your comments, it causes problems with the stub hierarchy. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Would it be OK if German WWII stubs were a subcategory of Nazi Germany stubs (in addition to other categories)? It's logical: ''Nazi Germany'' includes time before the war and also non-war things. All German WWII related is (by definition, I believe) also Nazi Germany related. Hence no need to double-stub. I don't like the idea of using Germany-mil-bio-stub in WWII bios as long as it only references Bundeswehr. [[User:Wipe|Wipe]] 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:Personally I don't see any reason why not, but I'd wait to see what other opinions arise here before doing anything about it. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 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 76:
I'll try and see if I can find some others that need this tomorrow. {{User:Blast san/signature|11.22.06|2306}}
:Seems unlikely to me that you'd find enough stubs for it, but if you do then it might well be worthwhile. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:The cited example isn't punctuation, it's a proofreading mark. There's an existing {{cl|typography stubs}}; I wouldn't be opposed to an upmerged {{tl|punctuation-stub}} feeding into that category, if people feel the need, and there's some middling number of stubs. I'm almost certain there's not enough in the {{cl|punctuation}} permanent category (and one smallish subcat) for a fullblown type, though. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 89:
{{sfp top|take to SFD}}
Already been created, apologies. Greater than 30 articles within scope, of course. [[User:drumguy8800|<font color="navy">drumguy8800</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Drumguy8800|<font color="green" style="font-size: 7pt;">C</font>]] [[User talk:Drumguy8800|<font color="green" style="font-size: 7pt;">T</font>]] 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:...but no WikiProject, which means it needs 60. Also, since it isn't a subcategory of Worth-stub, it should be FortWorth-stub. ''If'' it's needed at all, which I doubt. Given the size of Dallas-stub's category, it would make far more sense to have both in one category. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:This is exactly the sort of issue that I was talking about the other day. {{cl|Cities in Texas}} exists, yet has no stub category in it or any of it's sub-categories. {{cl|Dallas stubs}} and now {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} are sub-categories of {{cl|Texas stubs}}, which itself is a sub-category of {{cl|Texas}}... in other words, it's a mess! Unless i'm missing something, bothe Dallas and this new stub (if indeed neccesary) should be members of a {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} shouldn't they? --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 07:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::And as I said at the time, we don't want to create all such stub categories, because we don't want several hundred thousand types (as there are permanent categories), and we don't want articles stub-tagged with every possible category they should be in. The qualifier "if necessary" is correct, and key. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::*That's fine, but we seem to be in the habit of creating our own category trees within the "{whatever} stubs" categories that we do create. This is my primary critisizm here. In this particular instance, my opinion would be to sfd both {{cl|Dallas stubs}} and {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} (and by extension, to sfd this {{tl|Fort-Worth-stub}} template). Then, the articles in the current {{cl|Dallas stubs}} category, as well as those that would be in the {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} should go into a {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} category. So, I guess what i'm saying is that this proposal should be changed to be a proposal for a Cities in Texas stubs category and template, for the reasons stated. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't follow what you mean by "our own category trees". Every stub type ''is'' in the (permanent) category tree, and the considerable majority of them have a direct "permanent parent". I really don't for the life of me see why you're saying that {{cl|Fort Worth, Texas}} shouldn't have a corresponding stub-cat, but that {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} ''should'' -- the former might be marginal, but the latter doesn't make any sense at all, sorry. Are you objecting to "skipping a level" in the hierarchy... or what? If you're simply looking for a broader scope, wouldn't that of {{cl|Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex}} or {{cl|Tarrant County, Texas}} make more sense? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:Look at it this way. The category [[:Category:Beaches of Monaco]] exists. it contains the one article on a Monegasque beach that exists in wikipedia, and - given the country has a coastline of 4100 metres - mch of which is harbour - it is hardly likely we will get many more. Let's say there are two more beaches in monaco worthy of articles. That would leave a {{cl|Monaco beach stubs}} with at most three articles, and likely no articles at all. There is a very good reason why we have a minimum threshold for stub categories: to stop editors needing to check dozens of categories to find articles they can expand. it is likely, for example, that anyone who can edit articles on beaches in Monaco knows enough about the country to edit articles about Monaco in general. Thus, we have only {{cl|Monaco stubs}}. In exactly the same way, it makes little sense to have two small categories for Dallas and for Forth Worth since the twin-city conurbation is likely to attract the same set of editors. As has been pointed out, at a rough estimate, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000 times before, having "City stubs" categories and the like is an extraordinarily bad idea. As, in general, is the idea of trying to in any way create stub categories to represent an identical hierarchy to the permcats. They don't perform the same job, as my example above points out. Trying to shoehorn the same category structure on categories designed for readers and for editors simply will not work, and if attempted would pretty much stuff all the work which we've been doing in stub sorting for the last few years. I'm not saying I'm against this in any way, but I will say that it is one of the least sensible ideas I've heard regarding stub sorting, and if anyone tries to make such categories I will speedily delete them out of hand, and I don't care if I get banned for doing so. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*ok, ok, hang on. I basically agree with everything that you've said above. Either i'm not being clear in what I am saying, or it's being misinterpreted. In instances where the categories are already established, and an actual need for a stubs subcategory exists ''under the current guidelines'', I see no reason that stub categories should form their own separate tree. Your example is an extreme instance, and I highly doubt that such an occurance would come up. I find myself thinking that your attitue(s) are becoming entrenched in a "shout down the new guy" mentality. If you do not wish to consider changes to the system regardless of opinions, please let me know now so I don't waste my time. Thanks. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
**I have to say I think you're not being clear in what you're saying, or at least, Grutness and I are both having similar interpretation difficulties. We're ''not'' creating separate trees, as I've tried to explain. If you agree with Grutness, and aren't suggesting changing the existing guidelines, I don't see why you feel you're the victim of "entrenched attitudes". As I, after repeated attempts, don't understand what you wish to change (or not change? not even that's clear, to be honest), I think you're more of a vuctim of "total confusion". [[User:Alai|Alai]] 10:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 103:
{{sfp other}}
I've just merged the Ancient-Rome-town-stubs in here, but of course, the fate of this type is itself... under question, at best. The creator didn't repropose this one, which I think is marginal, but potentially sensible, so I'll float it here to get some clarity one way or the other. (If kept, I suggest a rename to {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}}.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. All geo-stubs are sorted by present day country. Unless Ancient Rome has suddenly made a reappearance as a modern country, I don't see any point in this one at all, especially since every stub which could be marked with it is better double-stubbed with present ___location and a plain Ancient-Rome-stub. If we allow an Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, then it is an unhealthy precedent which is very likely to see the creation of similar stubs for ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Thrace, Kievian Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Ghana, Ancient Zimbabwe, Nubia, the Incan Empire, Mesopotamia... I for one do not want to suddenly discover CeltoLigurian-geo-stub or Seleucid-geo-stub and then have to re-sport all the stubs marked with them back into their present day countries where most editors would be more likely to expect to find them. Then you've got the added problem of significant multistubbing of places with long histories. Lincoln, for example, might get Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, Danelaw-geo-stub, Mercia-geo-stub and Lincolnshire-geo-stub, even assuming it wasn't around during pre-Roman Britain. It may seem trivial in some cases (would anyone logically think of Lincoln as Ancient-Roman? Probably not), but not in others (how about Colchester or York?). On the whole, I think the whole idea is a bad one. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**So you think that [[Assyria (Roman province)]] and [[Carinae]] and [[Alsium]] are better off in modern-day-country categories? We may have the luxury for the time being of just chucking them back into {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}}, (where they came from, btw, rather than being defected country-geo-stubs) but won't we be telling each other what a great idea this is in several hundred stubs' time? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
***No, I'm certain we'll be fighting to be the first to take it to SFD. If you look at most of the stubs relating to Roman provinces, they are in current-day geo-stub categories, as should be the Assyria, Carinae, and Alsium ones. The fact that they aren't in current day geo-stub categories illustrates clearly that stubs which would normally be marked with a present-day-country geo-stub are not being marked as such because they are in this category. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
****That latter is rather convoluted logic: these were all until recently in the "Ancient Roman" parent, and none of the ones I looked at ever had a (different) -geo-stub, despite having existed for quite a while. (I hardly think you can blame ''this'' type for these not being sorted as you'd wish -- you must have a very different estimate of how many of the bazillions of stubs are in any sense "optimally sorted" than I do, I suppose.) And on the former, you didn't really address the point: once there's 1000 Ancient-Rome-stubs, and some large chunk of them are "places": would you really oppose a "much needed split" on that basis, and, well, why? Granted we're a long way short of that happening, but I hate having to undo work that there's every prospect of having to redo later. "Risk of failure to properly double-stub" is inherent to about, oh, at least 100,000 stub articles, I'd guess, and for articles that are only meaningful in a Roman historical context, like the above, if I had to ditch one, I'd certainly ditch the modern-day one, on the basis of primary notability, which I think is in distinct danger of being thrown out with the bathwater here. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
****all of this is a corollary point to what I have been saying. {{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}} is currently a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}} and {{cl|Geography stubs}}, but has no permanent category parent. If the need exists, there should be a {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}} category that is a child of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}}. In this case such a stubs category could also be a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}}, in order to support the perm cat structure of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}} being a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome}}. Again, another instance of us creating our own separate categorisation system that contradicts the guidelines establised at [[WP:CAT]] --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 127:
*'''Support''' - I don't think it'll create this rash of other sorted-by-civilization ones that you're so paranoid about. This is a one-off, and articles would just be sorted into this one and their present-country one, and NO OTHERS.
[[User:Neddyseagoon|User|Neddyseagoon]] 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
**I don't see how you can guarantee that this is a one-off, and that we won't suddenly get an Ancient-Greece-geo-stub for places stretching through Alexander's conquests, or an Inca-geo-stub for pre-Columbian South America. We've seen one stub type used as a precedent for others only too often here at WP:WSS in the past, and I'm not happy to open the door to yet more such. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
***You seem to keep the door ''shut'' pretty well to me. You still don't seem to have answered why you could not run such geo-stubs ''in parallel'' to the existing, 'current country' system, - giving any stub a modern country or modern country and ancient country, but ''never'' solely an ancient country as in your nightmare scenario - rather than the latter making the former an impossibility. Previous historical subdivisions inevitably cut across modern borders and include multiple modern countries, in some cases (empires) more than others. So if such a parallel system was set up (and you don't seem to be short of people to police it), historian wikipedia writers could home in on Roman empire cities, rather than having to trawl two-dozen modern country ones, and de-stub them with greater ease, speed and efficiency. Thus it makes sense from a historian's perspective even if not from a WPS police perspective that some (not me) might see as draconian or even blinkered.
Line 136:
****Yes, sorry, that was completely unfair, heat of the moment stuff. [[User:Neddyseagoon|User|Neddyseagoon]] 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, as Alai points out above, several of the articles are no longer being sorted into the present-day country-geo-stub categories where they should be, presumably at least in part because this category is being regarded as an alternative rather than as a complementary stub type. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Well, that's just because its true use as complementary hasn't become established yet.[[User:Neddyseagoon|User|Neddyseagoon]] 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
So many cities are Roman in Europe that this would hardly be an underpopulated stub-category, certainly. [[User:Neddyseagoon|User|Neddyseagoon]] 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
**I'm not arguing that it would be underpopulated - that is the least of my concerns. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:'''Oppose''' per Grutness. Otherwise we'll end up labelling an article about Paphlagonia with both "Ancient Rome", "Ancient Greece", "Hittites", "Byzantine Empire", "Ottoman Empire", "Seljuk Empire" and "Turkey". [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 162:
*I'd support this, on the provisos that there's complete clarity and explicit statement that the scope is geography as a discipline, and not for articles about locations and individual geographical features, so as to minimise the confusion with the "-geo-" hierarchy, and that there's some reasonable number of stubs that this would apply to (bearing in mind the existing subcat). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*subcat''s'', Alai - I suspect that, as I mentioned to GeoW a couple of days ago, many of the stubs that could take this already take such things as geo-term-stub, map-stub, geographer-stub and topography-stub. Can you give us a few examples of some that don't, please? Making a parent from them that is different from the geo-stubs (which are for specific ___location articles) would make sense if there are enough of them that wouldn't qualify for one of those stub types. The problem with using geography-stub for that, though, is that it's still a very frequently used redirect - on my daily clean-out of the main geography stub category I'd say half of the new items put into it use that redirect (so that's about three or four new stubs using it daily). Perhaps {{tl|geography-sci-stub}} (or {{tl|geo-sci-stub}}) would be a more appropriate name? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**Not a bad idea about the template name(s). Perhaps {{tl|geography-stub}} might be turned into a "please use something else" message, along the pattern of {{tl|football-stub}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*Ok. Here are some examples from ((geo-term-stub) that could be changed: [[Association of American Geographers]], [[Behavioral geography]], [[Environment and Planning]], [[Environmental geography]], [[Geosophy]], [[Health geography]], [[Language geography]], [[Maritime geography]], [[Panbiogeography]], [[Philosophy of Geography]], [[Phytogeography]], [[Population geography]], [[Social geography]], [[Strategic geography]], [[Time geography]], [[Visual geography]]. These are also stubs: [[Regional geography]], [[Historical geography]], [[Marketing geography]], [[Military geography]], [[Geographic information science]]. I also wanted to use it for example for [[Americanization]], [[Westernization]] ... - to classify this as geographical term (using the geo-term-template) would not be appropriate. It's only related to [[Cultural geography]]. I agree with creation of ((geo-sci-stub)) instead of my first proposal.
Line 175:
:***Cat:Geography term stubs
:***Cat:Topography stubs
[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:I don't care much about hierarchy this time, but about the creation of stub that would state that: This ''geography related'' article is a stub. Geography is quite interdisciplinary study. Issues that are in scope of geographers are also in scope of other scientists (example is the process of americanization - it falls within the scope of language scientists as was written on the talk page recently, many could contribute to this issue from different views and expand the stub). In many cases it's also ridiculous when it states that this geographical term is stub. [[Association of American Geographers]] is a bright example of this. On the other hand academic geography on wikipedia does not have that many articles, that every geographical discipline could have its own stub. So, I think its good solution at present. [[User:GeoW|GeoW]] 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::The point with the hierarchy is that 30 stubs by itself isn't really sufficient for a stub type - but 30 and four child categories is more likely to get support. As to where it itself would fit into the tree, it would fit not only into {{cl|Geography stubs}} but also into a category for earth sciences (along with {{cl|Geology stubs}} et al.) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::So, why everything else what does not fit in the other categories is in the ((geo-term-stub)). Maybe it would be better to change the text of ((geo-term-stub)) to Geography related article instead of this geographical term is stub.[[User:GeoW|GeoW]] 15:23, 1 December 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 183:
==={{tl|London-road-stub}}===
{{sfp top|let Alai & Grutness work it out}}
Apropos of discussion at SFD, I did a quick tally of {{cl|London geography stubs}} and found that - of the 550 stubs in that category - around 95 were streets, roads, squares and circuses (circi?). This would reduce the load on this stub cat and also reduce the need to split it into boroughs or similar. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
* '''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 196:
*#Currently these roads are stubbed with London-geo-stub, which is incorrect in terms of how we use geo-stub elsewhere - as such, making a separate template and category for them will actually bring London-geo-stub in line with other geo-stubs;
*# we may be nowhere near having to split the UK-road-stubs, but London-geo-stub is getting sizable, at 550 stubs - and since 17% of its contents are items which theoretically should be marked with a diferent stub type, I say let's make that stub type!
*[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**100 stubs argues to "viable", not necessarily "sensible". In fact, I really haven't seen any argument as to ''why'' splitting these by "form" is better than by more-specific-___location -- especially as you're the person to argue the most vigorously against <place>-<landform>-stubs. That we already have a road-stub hierarchy, and (notoriously) many road-focused editors is granted, but in this case such "demand" as there is seems to be going the other way. It's further a bit of a stretch to assert that (say) [[Churchfield Road]] "should" be marked as anything other than a London-stub, since the "transport" aspect seems to be minimal, and the "part of London" considerable (as far as a six-sentence article goes). At any rate, I think we should get some Londonocentric input on this before getting too far ahead of ourselves. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
***A road isn't a landform - which is why with every other geo-stub except London's, roads aren't included. I don't see why London lists them if the others don't. If you want to be technical about it, roads are a form of structure, and those ''are'' split by type as well as ___location (theat-struct, bridge-struct, church, stadium...). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
****Remind me at what point I gave the impression that I thought roads were landforms; if "form", which I was ''not'' using interchangeably with "landform", is too similar, read as "type". I'm not sure I do want to be 'technical' about it, but roads are not in any especially useful sense 'structures', and are never that I recall either perm-categorised that way, nor stub-supercatted as such. OTOH, they generally ''are'' in "-geo-stub" hierarchies (the stub cats being rather more broadly drawn than the various "Geography of Foobar" cats, i.e. including all aspects of human geography, as well as the assorted landforms. And as I've pointed out, some of these articles are not merely articles-about-human-geography-by-way-of-road-transport, they're "neighbourhood" articles (and thus even moreso about human geography) with very little to do with transport, and would probably be more logically be split up (when split up they have to be) in much the same way that other -geo-stub categories of entities of comparable scale, i.e. by sub-region. And yes, some of them are just 'road articles', pure and simple, what's less clear as to whether those approach the stated total, or indeed the usual creation threshold. However, I don't see any of the requested input from the London projecteers, so perhaps I'm attracting undue grief unto my personage to little ultimate purpose. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*****FWIW {{cl|Geography stubs}} has {{cl|Building and structure stubs}} as a subtype, but ''not'' {{cl|Road stubs}} - and as such much of your point above isn't actually valid as far as the way the hierarchy currently operates. For the most part, these stubs are not about neighbourhoods - they are indeed about the individual roads mentioned in the titles. Even if only 60% of them are, that's still 57 stubs, and I'd say that 60% is a very very conservative estimate. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
******Oh, that settles everything, then. In fact, the whole structure of the -geos and the -B&Ss is massively inconsistent from case to case, being sometimes a subcat, and sometimes not, and I'm inclined to believe that when they are a subcategory (the B&S root included), it's as much through "where to put a by-region type?" issue as any settled "buildings as geography" taxonomy. And, are you arguing that "roads" are a subset of "structures", which are a subset of "geography" (as above), ''or'' that roads aren't a subset of geography (as your original 'mis-sorted' claim)? (Well, actually, you've been arguing both, but I'm hoping you can be induced to pick just one of the above.) You may be correct about "for the most part", but equally you may not, and it's rather difficult to say without getting into a case-by-case wrangle about the whole list. (Bearing in mind you don't seem to have specifically addressed my point about the particular example already cited.) However, if there are 60 "primarily about roads as an aspect of transport" stubs, I have no actual objection to this. (In practice this may require either not looking at the contents, if this is created, or else taking numerous Natracalms.) There's 19 double-stubbed with both, which is a plausible start.
******Let me comment what I ''hope'' is one final time on the NY/London thing, since I've already said I am not going to continue to comment on what in my view has nothing at all to do with the NY proposal, under that heading -- and frankly that it ever got to the point of "opposition contingent on argumentative hypothetical" was pretty ridiculous. This also seems to be the only type where there's ever been any material question at issue. Road-stubs should clearly be split up by sub-region where viable and/or necessary to do so, and splitting up the U.S. by state should be beyond any argument, and much more logical than the "particular by-state system" scheme foisted on us by the road-warriors. Tagging articles as "roads" that are questionably, secondarily, or not-really-at-all {{tl|road-stubs}} is much less clear-cut, and ''that's'' what I was commenting on here. Is it clear that those are different things? Is it clear I'm not in fact saying what I've elsewhere been assumed and/or stated to be saying? If so, then enough said. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
*****Sigh. Of course I'm not arguing that they are building and structure stubs. The reason I mentioned that they were technically more that than geo-stubs is that I was following your logic of how they should be assigned. if I followed the way you were thinking they should be more that geo-stubs, they should count as structures. But they aren't either - we aren't silly enough to regard building and structure stubs as a logical parent for road stubs, just as I hope we're not silly enough to regard geography stubs as a natural parent for it. As for being correct "for the most part" without going on a case by case basis, how the hell do you think I came up with that figure? I went on a cae by case basis, and I'd say that somewhere between 65 and 75% (hence my 60% being conservative) are roads first, neighbourhoods as distant second if at all. There are considerably more than 60 as primarily about roads as roads - that is, things called roads with roads in the title of the articles, sincwe they are about roads, not about suburbs or districts or neighbourhoods and clearly not so becausrs the articles are about roads. Is that clear enough? Listen - I'm sick to death of arguing this point with you - I can't see why on earth you would object to it. Your comments so far have made absolutely no sense on this matter. Alai, have you even ''looked'' at the articles you're arguing about? What is there about [[Kingsway (London)]], say, that makes it less than obviously about a thoroughfare? or [[Addington Street]]? Or [[City Road]]? Or [[Baylis Road]]? Or [[Lea Bridge Road]]? [[Blackfriars Road]]? [[Cockspur Street]]? [[Kennington Road]] (part of the A23, BTW)? [[Great Dover Street]] (part of the A2)? Shall I go on? Since the argument for NewYork-road-stub is to include those new York city streets currently covered by US-road-stub, I can't see any difference - or is there something special about the likes of [[50th Street (Manhattan)]] or [[Avenue C (Manhattan)]] that make them more obviously about a vehicular thoroughfares and less obviously about neighbourhoods than [[Finsbury Pavement]]? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 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 266:
{{sfp top|create as modified by Alai}}
Many of the articles about Long Island Rail Road stations in [[:Category:Long Island Rail Road stations]] (of which there are 44) are stubs, and I think they should be classified as Long Island Rail Road station stubs to be more specific and to aid [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains|WikiProject Trains]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations|WikiProject Stations]]. I've taken the liberty of creating the category and its associated stub template ([[:Category:Long Island Rail Road station stubs]] and [[:Template:LIRR-station-stub]] respectively) but I didn't associate them with any higher up stub classifications. It should probably be a subcategory of [[:Category:United States train station stubs]]. -- [[User:WindowsWizard12|Robert]] 06:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. I'm not at all convinced that this is a good move - with other countries we've started splitting station stubs by ___location, not by specific line (thus a NewYork-railstation-stub would be the obvious way to split US railstation-stubs). And if there are only 44 station articles in total, it seems extremely unlikely from the viewpoint of logic that 60 of them will be stubs. And I'm ''certainly'' not convinced that "make the template first then propose it later" is a good way to go. All in all, this could have been handled better if you'd come here first. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::'''Comment''' But on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Proposing new stubs - procedure]] page it says "Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case," and these are part of a WikiProject, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations|WikiProject Stations]]. Also, sorry for creating the template first; I had no idea of the existance of this page until I'd already created it and was looking into how to add it to a stub category. --[[User:WindowsWizard12|Robert]] 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The stub type associated with the wikiproject would be {{cl|United States train station stubs}}; the "associated with a wikiproject" clause isn't intended to be read as meaning ''any'' stub type which is in some sense associated with a wikiproject -- which would be all of them. Perhaps the wording on this could stand to be more clear: [[WP:STUB]], for example, says "This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.)" [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 317:
I created {{tl|liberty-ship-stub}} and tagged 34 articles (see [[:Category:Liberty ship stubs]]). Sorry I'm posting this after the fact; I'll follow the procedure next time. [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
*If that's the total number of existing candidates, it's rather small. A possibility would be to rescope to naval auxiliaries in general. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I agree - it's very small. Alai's suggestion of an increased scope might be a sensible move. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Only 34 articles? Interesting given that the U.S. produced more than 1,000 of these ships. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 20:44, 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 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 393:
{{sfp top|create template, upmerge to European politicians and Asian politicians}}
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
*'''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 413:
* {{tl|India-law-bio-stub}} - over 60 articles
* {{tl|India-reli-bio-stub}} - over 60 articles
A speedy approval is requested as of now not many plans for the weekend ;-) [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
:: Now do have plans, working on {{tl|Germany-stub}} and {{tl|Germany-bio-stub}} stub sort, {{tl|India-bio-stub}} needs to wait some more time, hopefully till then we would have reached a consensus. :-| [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
:If you speedily confirm there's more than 60 in each, we promise not to complain too much. :) (And you'd be due much thanks in the long run, obviously.) If you want to be super-scrupulous, you could always populate upmerged templates in the meantime... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:: {{tl|India-bio-stub}} contains over 800 articles, going through less than half of them I found that the following cats {{tl|India-mil-bio-stub}}, {{tl|India-med-bio-stub}} and {{tl|India-reli-bio-stub}} definatley have more than 60 articles. About {{tl|India-musican-stub}} and {{tl|India-law-bio-stub}} cannot give figures for sure now but I think would touch 60 when I am through with all the bio stubs. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
*'''Support''' any over 60 in size - willing to turn a blind eye to airly speedy creation if there are no complaints, but Alai's suggestion is probably a better one: set the new templates to the main cat until you're sure there are 60, then make the new cat and re-point the template. FWIW, 800 isn't really "very large" by stub standards, but it's certainly well on the way there. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**It's over 800, which is "very large" by my definition, not to mention [[WP:WSS/T]]'s (where you'll note that it was recently even larger). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
***whoops - yes, for some reason I was remembering our six hundred definition for very large as six ''pages'' (which is very VERY large!) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
****OK, I see, but... where's it defined as ''six'' hundred, either? Granted anything over a listing page is starting to be less than optimal in some sense, and and higher cutoff is fairly arbitrary, but it would be useful to keep to a standard number, with regard to what to tag with {{tl|verylargestub}}, list as cases resorting/splitting cases on the to-do list, and bear in mind as "extenuating circumstances" for creating splits we'd otherwise be lukewarm about. (For each of those, I'd be inclined to go with 800 as the admittedly-arbitrary-cutoff, at least until such time as there's a decision to move it in unison for each of them.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 12:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
***Actually, that's a good question. I'm sure we've used it before, but the WP:WSS/T page lists both >800 and 5 pages as oversized in different sections. Seems to be pretty arbitrary overall, come to think of it. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
****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
*'''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>
==={{tl|Samoa-geo-stub}}===
{{sfp create}}
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
*'''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
:''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 442:
* {{tl|Mexico-mountain-stub}}
*'''Oppose'''. Country-geo-stubs are divided by subnational region, not landform. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*'''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 450:
{{sfp top|create as Wyong Shire geography stubs}}
I can find 50 of these, possibly to grow when I get a more recent db dump (any month now, perhaps). NSW geos are back up to exactly 800 (or they were yesterday, at any rate). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Not sure I like the "suburb geography stubs" idea in general - other Aussie cities we've just gone with the "X geography stub" name. How Wyong got up to 50 I don't know, but if it's needed I'd suggest we do the same here. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::The permcat is {{cl|Suburbs of Wyong}}, which seems to correspond in some rather unclear way to [[Wyong Shire]]. If the permcat is renamed and/or rescoped I have no objection to doing so with this. See also {{cl|Gosford suburb geography stubs}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Gosford has one too? But we changed the "suburb" categories to plain geography ones for Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth because everywhere else just used geo-stub categories pure and simple! When was the Gosford one proposed? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::[[Special:whatlinkshere]] answers the latter question (in this and a number of other such instances). As far as I can see, the parent of the Melbourne stubs is {{cl|Geography of Melbourne}}, so I see evidence in that case of such a precedent. Furthermore, it does not appear that [[Wyong]] and the suburbs/[[Wyong Shire]] are coterminus, so I don't think it would aid clarity in this instance. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Mmm. Well, okay. Not ''entirely'' happy with it, but if that's the best way to split them. It does sound like a move towards "town-stub" though. It will simply be {{tl|Wyong-geo-stub}} though, no? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::I assume it would include "geography" ''in'' the various suburbs, too. Yes on the template name; again, see the Gosford example. As I say, if someone wants to do some rejiggification of the permcats (such as renaming to, or adding as a supercat a {{cl|Wyong Shire}} or something to that effect, if they can sanity-check that makes scoping sense (Aussie use of the term 'suburb' is as a closed book to me)), I'm fine with a name following-some-different-permcat. Or, we could smoosh the two into {{cl|Central Coast geography stubs}}, come to that. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:In an attempt to cut this particular Gordian knot, I've created {{cl|Wyong Shire}}, and renamed this one {{cl|Wyong Shire geography stubs}}. Let's see if that pans out. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 465:
* {{tl|Germany-engineer-stub}} > 60 articles
* {{tl|Germany-law-bio-stub}} > 60 articles
German people stubs is now 4 page long, the above further splits would shorten it further. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
*'''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|<
*'''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 476:
*Support; 54+1*subcat is plenty for me. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*Hate to say "me too", but... "me too". [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 489:
* {{tl|France-architect-stub}}
* {{tl|France-historian-stub}}
Splits needed to bring down the 5 page stub list. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
:Support, assuming threshold is indeed passed; I'd found a number of each of these, without being able to confirm there being other 60 (but then, there's always uncategorisation in play). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:02, 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 507:
===A couple more country-geo-stub template only creations===
{{sfp create}}
The latest count of geo-stubs shows that both Dominica and Togo have made it to 40 geo-stubs, so it would make sense to addan upmerged {{tl|Togo-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Dominica-geo-stub}} to the collection. No more countries have made the level for separate categories, although there are still the outstanding "finished business" ones at the bottom of the page to deal with anyway (which I'll get onto in the next few minutes, with any luck). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 527:
**'''Comment''' - I am in the process of trying to determine which existing stub articles might qualify for having these templates used on them. I request that the rejection of the stubs be postponed until I can determine which have enough potential articles to qualify for the creation of a new stub template. Also, I can imagine that if there are one or two groups of only 40 or so which don't quite measure up to the full required 60, that I might create a few new stub articles to justify the creation of the stub template. If I do so, I will only create new stub articles based on names already included on existing lists, or from easily available reliable sources. I hope that this unfortunate creation of a few more stubs to justify the creation of a stub template is acceptable. [[User:Badbilltucker|Badbilltucker]] 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
***I've no objection to whatever stubs get created, on whatever basis, but there's more than just size issues here (though some of these seem unlikely to be viable anytime soon for all of Bavaria, much less just Munich): we don't stub-tag people by place of birth, or otherwise by criteria that would lead to rampant multi-stubbing. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' to the footy-bio one for the reason that subnational bio stubs of any kind other than politicians are generally opposed - people move around too much, so it would be easy to rack up half a dozen stub types for an article very quickly. '''Weaker oppose''' to the others, given the size of the parent stubcat and the likely undersized nature of the stub types in question. Willing to re-appraise that ''iff'' it becomes clear that there are enough stubs for those stub types and also clear that the parent stub cats are significantly oversized. Would have no objection at all to (and indeed suggest as a good '''compromise position''') a specific {{tl|Munich-stub}} / {{cl|Munich stubs}} since we do not have one (double-stubbing with other stub types such as bavaria-geo-stub and germany-company-stub where necessary), but this overfragmentation seems like a bad idea. In fact, considering sub-types of Munich-stub when we don't even have Munich-stub seems pretty strange, to say the least. Having one stub category to cover articles relating to Munich would seem a far more sensible option for both us and the Munich WikiProject than trying to justify this sort of split. Note: I'm a little concerned by some potential misunderstanding of the use of stub templates in some of the category headings too - the geo-stub one says it is for a "list of Munich boroughs, suburban and other Munich-related locations", which isn't what such a category would be for (it would be for stub articles about Munich boroughs, suburbs, etc). If all that is wanted is a category for Munich boroughs, etc, in general, then a permcat is wanted, not a stub cat. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**'''Comment''' - At this point, I have to agree that the single Munich-stub might be the best immediate option, and I honestly wish I had thought of it earlier. It would allow for the project to see which stubs fall within its scope, while not creating additional underpopulated stub categories. Also, the possibility of further subcategories of stubs would be an option, depending on how large the first category of stubs is. Here, however, I have a probably stupid question. There are no significant objections to placing multiple stub templates on a single article, are there? Several members of the EU Parliamant, German Parliament, etc., seem to be from Munich, as would probably several of the other members of the various existing Germany stub categories. [[User:Badbilltucker|Badbilltucker]] 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
***No, that's fine, up to a point. It's encouraged in fact, since having two stub templates on an article means that the article is more likely to be seen by different types of editor (e.g., A Munich-stub and a germany-struct-stub together would be seen by editors interested in Munich and also those interested in German buildings). I say ''up to a point'' though - it's generally frowned on to have more than about three or four stub templates on any one article (hence the comments about the footy-bio-stub above). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
****I agree that a {{tl|Munich-stub}} is a much better place to start. If some of these are going to have significant (if undersized) numbers, there's also precedent for "double-upmerging" a template (so that it feeds into, for example, both German B&S stubs and Munich stubs) until such time as it hits 60+. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*****... though that is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/November#Cat:Tajikistani_people_stubs|occasionally an unpopular move]], it seems... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*How about changing the politicians stub to politics stub. I really want it to have a wider scope to the stub. footy becomes athlete. I was always borderline about the company. The university one can have many things in it. Keep the history one. Munich has a long and rich history. Keep the building and structures. [[User:Kingjeff|Kingjeff]] 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
**As per guidelines, though, it will have to be established that each new stub template created have at least 60 existing pages on which the stub template can be used. I don't think that rule is going to be voided because of the project. Actually, considering Munich has a project, the likelihood of those articles remaining stubs is likely to drop, which would even ''decrease'' the number of stub articles it could be applied to. I do think right now the best option would be to take the single Munich-stub proposal, see how many articles it applies to, and then discuss the possibility of adding further stubs later, depending on how many stub articles exist that it can be applied to. [[User:Badbilltucker|Badbilltucker]] 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Footy to athlete means more sports are involved. Politcian to politics means more then just Munich politicians. I made these categories only for the WikiProject. I don't care if anyone else uses them. This is for the benefit of the WikiProject. [[User:Kingjeff|Kingjeff]] 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Athlete (by which I presume you mean sportsperson) would have an identical problem to footy-bio. As I said above, we don't generallty divide bio-stubs by subnational region because people move around too much. Politics-stub wouldn't theoretically have politician stubs in it, though related, they're quite separate - in much the same way as you wouldn't mark entomologists with insect-stub. As things are, I stand by the suggestion that one overall munich-stub is a far more sensible arrangement, double-stubbed as necessary with any other relevant stub templates. As far as the other ones go, just look at the sizes of the German parent categories: Only 71 articles marked with germany-university-stub, a little over 200 germany-struct-stubs, 350 germany-hist-stubs. I seriously doubt that any categories on those topics specifically for Munich will get close to a reasonable size, even the last one (especially since many of the items in it relate to Germany as a whole). It might be worth considering a Bavaria-struct-stub, which again might be useful for your WikiProject, rather than a specific Munich-struct-stub, as long as there are a significant number of stubs (which there may be). Let's face it, no other city has so many separate stubs of this kind, even far larger ones with long-established wikiprojects. Even the long-established London WikiProject only has two stub types. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
'''Comment:''' '''''Athlete (by which I presume you mean sportsperson) would have an identical problem to footy-bio. As I said above, we don't generallty divide bio-stubs by subnational region because people move around too much.''''' So this is now all about what this project wants and not about helping out [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich|WikiProject Munich]]. I think this project is going above and beyond the authority of what a WikiProject is suppose to do. By getting these templates deleted, you would be hurting WikiProject Munich and by going against this project, you would be hurting Wikipedia. I've even shown that I'm willing to compromise on the situation. [[User:Kingjeff|Kingjeff]] 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:''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
*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
This WikiProject is a joke. [[User:Kingjeff|Kingjeff]] 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:It is your prerogative to think so, but if it is it's certainly a long-running and very active one. This is by far Wikipedia's biggest and most active WikiProject, and liaises extremely well with dozens, if not hundreds, of other WikiProjects. Have you had a chance to look at [[WP:CIVIL]] yet, BTW? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*'''Support''' creation of {{tl|Munich-stub}}; anything for a quiet life. [[User:Pegship|<b>H</b>er <b>P</b>egship]] 05:18, 28 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 569:
Fixed spelling -- [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:''If'' it's needed, then it would need a better name (this one defies just abut everything connected to the template naming at WSS). Given the size of {{cl|Anime and manga stubs}} some split might be in order, but I'd like to see some evidence that this would be the best way to do it. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 575:
{{sfp other}}
I think we should have a stub for earthquakes. [[User:Patricknoddy|Patricknoddy]] 4:46pm November 17, 2006 (EST)
*A bit of clarification here - do you mean individual historic earthquake events, or earthquake science? The two are quite distinct, and probably could do with separate stub types ({{tl|earthquake-stub}} and {{tl|seismology-stub}}, perhaps). Are there enough stubs for this? Are there even enough for ''one'' category? If there's enough for only one category, then two templates leading to one category is an option. It all depends on the count. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 621:
*{{Tl|Horseracing-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Horseracing biography stubs}}
all seem viable[[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
**Sounds reasonable. Another possible axis to split on would be gallops vs steeples vs trotting and pacing, but I think I prefer your suggestion. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*For naming consistency, those should be {{cl|Horse race stubs}}, {{cl|Racehorse stubs}} and {{cl|horse racing biography stubs}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:01, 6 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 639:
::Oops, pesky c'n'p. Thanks, fixed. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::: '''Support''' revised ;) [[User:Monni1995|Monni]] 20:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder that I am indeed [[User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying|keeping a close eye on]] these. My last count-up was only a week ago, and we've been using 65 as the usual split for national geo-stubs. Having said that, i've no objection to the creation of the first couple. BTW, your tally and mine don't quite agree - I have slightly higher numbers for some of those countries, and two more (Marshalls-geo-stub and CongoR-geo-stub) are also above 45. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:The above are only for countries with double-upmerged templates, and are only counting articles in both stub categories, as of the 31st. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::That explains it - my count was on the 7th, and I don't think we have either a Marshalls-stub or a CongoR-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 656:
51-60: [[Diplacodes]], [[Celithemis]], [[Celithemis eponina]], [[Neopetalia punctata]], [[Macromiidae]], [[Gomphidae]], [[Corduliidae]], [[Blue-eyed Darner]], [[Calopterygidae]], [[Coenagrionidae]].<br>
There are more, either not marked as {{tl|insect-stub}} or not marked as a stub at all. Plus there will be many more as each species is filled in. [[User:A2Kafir|A2Kafir]] 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*Sounds reasonable in terms of size - I'll take your word for it in terms of the taxonomy, though if someone can confirm that it's a logical way to split these things I'd be happier. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**Dragonflies and damselflies make up the whole order of insects called [[Odonata]]; that's why they fit together like this. So {{tl|dragonfly-stub}} would be a subcategory of both the category of insect stubs and the category for Odonata. [[User:A2Kafir|A2Kafir]] 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
*Support, contingent on the stub category name following the permanent category name ({{cl|Odonata stubs}}. (Usual escape clause from the singular noun naming guideline.)) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 665:
====added to WPSS====
I just added the WikiProject: Stub sorting. template to the [[:Category:Joinery stubs]] page, as it is a current stub category, but is not aparently in the project. -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:Not all categories have the template because that is a relatively new template; there were already several hundred categories in use when it was created, and not all of them have had it added yet. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::just for the sake of clarity, we ''should'' be adding the W:SS template to stub category pages that do not currently have it correct? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but you didn't come straight out and say it. -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:mainly yes. We should be adding it to ones that have been cleared through either the proposal or discovery page. Ones that haven't been shouldn't have it on until we've decided what top do with them. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::I see. Thank you! -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 677:
::I'm fine with the way it is, now that I know some of the history. The thing is, as a new stub-sort'er it did take me a while to find the proper stub to use. That being the case, could we expect someone who doesn't usually put articles into a stub category to know that the proper one to use is "joinery-stub"? That's the root of my concern.
::just to add some references to the discussion here, the definitions for joinery [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joinery&x=0&y=0], woodworking [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=woodworking&x=0&y=0], and carpentry [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=carpentry&x=0&y=0]. From looking over the above definitions, it seems logical to me for everything to be under the umbrella of woodworking (and therefore woodworking-stub would be the stub). In addition to their being past history on this subject, I'm still to new at this to feel comfortable in continuing this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. I do feel that the information provided above should be usefull in coming to a consensus, however. -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 18:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is all a while ago, so my memory might not be 100% accurate, but ISTR that carpentry and joinery have somewhat different meanings in different countries (here, for instance, joinery implies furniture and fittings, carpentry implies buildings) - as such it made sense to have both stub types point at the same category. Since there is a redirect, there's nothing to stop anyone using carpentry-stub in place of joinery-stub as a tag for articles - the result will be the same. This has worked fine so far, though if there's a call to reoppen the idea of splitting them, that's fine by me, as long as it's clear what should be marked with which stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:I would be opposed to splitting, it's useful to have all woodworking related stubs in one place. Whether the category is called [[:Category:Joinery stubs]] is immaterial to me, although I admit it would be neater if the category was [[:Category:Woodworking stubs]]. But having several stub templates such as joinery-stub, carpentry-stub, and perhaps woodworking-stub is OK and maybe even better, as long as they all point to the same category. [[User:Luigizanasi|Luigizanasi]] 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 690:
[[User:Nathannoblet|Nathannoblet]] 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Looks reasonable if there are 30 or more. The only problem I can see is that "Gold Coast" is a disambiguation page (in fact, my first thought was the place now known as Ghana) - and I only live just across the ditch from Queensland!). Might I suggest that it be called {{tl|GoldCoastQLD-stub}} or similar to get around that? Also, the usual caveats about double-stubbing apply (that is, geo-stubs about Gold Coast get marked with both this new stub and Queensland-geo-stub, struct-stubs with the new stub and Australia-struct-stub, etc etc etc, so that they are also stubbed by type as well as ___location). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::I had the same feeling, Grutness (well, I could be biased. Half of Europe had colonies in Ghana, including [[Danish Gold Coast|you-guessed-it]]) :) What do we do with the category name? We'd better be able to distinguish between the two. {{cl|Gold Coast, Queensland stubs}} ? [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 11:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The article and permcat are both called [[Gold Coast, Queensland]], so that would make perfect sense. And yes, I know about Christiansborg Castle, Accra ;) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::(Jaw hitting floor). [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 14:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>:)</nowiki> My dad used to work in Ghana. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 705:
*And also {{cl|Lucknow division geography stubs}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
: '''Support''', there is a need of further stubs based on the [[Divisions of Uttar Pradesh]], as not only the Agra, Bareilly and Lucknow geo stubs are very large. There are in all 17 divisions!! [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
::Those were the only ones I found that look like being over 60, though of course I'm open to correction on that. If anyone is feeling zealous, I'd suggest creation of all 70 per-district templates, upmerged either to district categories, or to the UP parent. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::: OK! I will do that but after I am finished sorting the {{tl|India-bio-stub}}. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
::::There's no hurry on that, the first couple should take care of the immediate oversizedness. And more power to you if you reduce that of the bios... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:03, 22 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 718:
*{{cl|Coimbatore district geography stubs}} 76
Five-page parent. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Support both this and the UP ones, if they will help to erode the size of the parent cats (ba-doom-ching!) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 724:
{{sfp create}}
Needed for {{tl|Tajikistan-bio-stub}}. [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:No it isn't. That category has been deliberately upmerged into a larger category, since there are not enough Tajikistani biography stubs for a separate category. Currently there are only 27 stubs marked with this template - note the requirements listed above for separate categories. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Including them in [[:Category:Asian people]] (without being in any subcategory) is simply useless (because [[:Category:Asian people]] is too large). Also, the term [[Asian people]] is misleading in this case, because it's mostly used for [[East Asians]]. [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::That's only because there are more east Asians with stubs - if it is true, which it doesn't seem to be by looking at that category. In any case, it also directs to {{cl|Tajikistan stubs}}, which is a logical place to look for them. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::In fact, there are only some 150 articles in that category (which is {{cl|Asian people stubs}}, not {{cl|Asian people}}), so finding Tajikistani ones should be no problem at all. Many of the others there seem to be from Armenia and Georgia, which isn't really East Asia by anyone's definition of the term. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::About the small number of the articles, what is the threshold? Where is the policy page? [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 07:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::As I mentioned, have a look at the top of the page. To quote from there: ''60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject''. For more explicit details, see [[WP:STUB]], which says''Ideally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.)'' Given that there is no WikiProject for Tajikistan, there are fewer than half the number that are required. Directing a template such as this one to a more general category, as has been done here, is standard practice when there are below this threshold number of stubs. If you can find another 30-35 stubs which can be marked with this template, then there will be no problem creating such a category - but until there are that many, directing it to the larger categories is a more sensible thing to do. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::BTW, I've just rolled back your change to the template - please don't mess around with it. Removing a perfectly acceptable category from it - one that is the result of a discussion only a couple of weeks ago - could easily be considered vandalism. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::::A perfect acceptable category?! I have already mentioned why it's not appropriate in this case.
:::::A result of the discussion in a couple of weeks ago?! In that discussion 4 users participated and among them only you have mentioned using this category. [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 09:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Outsider's 2c: Jahangard, I suggest you give it a rest. While Grutness' response may have been a bit harsher than strictly necessary, I can't see anything wrong with the solution he's been advocating. Just look at how these articles show up both in [[:Category:Asian people stubs ]] and in [[:Category:Tajikistan stubs]], that seems to make perfect sense to me and is in accordance with common stub sorting practice. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::You explained why having it link to {{cl|Asian people}} was inappropriate. I agree - but it never linked there. It links, perfectly acceptably and approriately, to {{cl|Asian people stubs}}, which only contains 131 stubs, many of them for people from around central Asia (not, as you claim, for people in East Asia). Unless you'd like to argue that Tajikistan is not in Asia, i don't see how you can suggest that this is not an appropriate category. As for the discussion, the number of people involved was small, yes, but that is hardly relevant to the fact that a decision was reached and carried out through propoer process, that decision being to upmerge the template. Since the template is a bio-stub template, the only logical place it could be upmerged is to the next higher bio-stub category on the hierarchy, that is, {{cl|Asian people stubs}}. This is standard stub practice when a category is upmerged - Since there are too few articles currently to have a {{cl|Tajikistani people stubs}}, the template redirects to {{cl|Tajikistan stubs}} and to the next higher {{cl|X people stubs}} - in this case, Asia. Now, are you going to address my earlier suggestion and find a couple of dozen more stubs so that you can have the category you want, or are you far happier yelling at me? I know which I'd prefer, which is why I've been trying to find a few more Tajikistan-bio-stubs myself. If you would like to do something useful and help in that task, it would be much appreciated. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*'''UPDATE''' - After a bit of frantic stub-creation by [[User:Francis Tyers]] and myself, there are now enough stubs for a separate category. As such, I now support the creation of a separate category. Hopefully, that will keep everyone happy. Some advice for next time, Jahangard - if you are told that a few more stubs are needed for a new category, ''find a few more stubs for the category''. It's a lot more sensible - and much less of a waste of time and energy - than kicking up a fuss about whether a category is appropriate or not or whether an upmerge should have been made to a parent category when no category was specified. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*'''Support''' as per Grutness. - [[User:f-m-t|Francis Tyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this solution, of course. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 750:
To be located under {{cl|Classical antiquity}} and {{cl|Literature stubs}}, to include Latin, Greek, and any other text that falls into this period and is not poetry, drama, or myth. We need something for items which are not books per se from this era. Count coming... [[User:Pegship|<b>H</b>er <b>P</b>egship]] 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::OK, the count is: 50, under {{cl|Ancient Greek works}} and {{cl|Latin texts}} (which, of course, are not all from the classical antiquity period). I can keep trolling, but if this doesn't sound workable to y'all I will cease & desist, and get back to categorizing. [[User:Pegship|<b>H</b>er <b>P</b>egship]] 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Is this instead as or as well as the latin-lit-stub suggested at WP:SFD? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::I withdrew that one after further musing. [[User:Pegship|<b>H</b>er <b>P</b>egship]] 07:29, 16 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 756:
==={{tl|India-scientist-stub}}===
{{sfp create}}
The stub category {{tl|India-bio-stub}} needs to be sorted as it is too large now. The number of articles related to scientists is over 60 and growing. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
: As per Alai's suggestion below, I would also like to propose {{tl|India-academic-bio-stub}} as a further stub split as there are more than 60 stub articles belonging to this sub category. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] [[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|<
*An excellent plan then, on both those grounds. Actually, I already proposed {{cl|Indian scientist stubs}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive26#India-bio_split|here]], so this would technically be speediable. (I didn't create it, as it'd require a manual 'trawl', as I think is generally the case with all the occupation-splits, so I ignored it in favour of "easier" splits.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] 02:13, 16 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
:''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 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 797:
There are 35 of these just counting the trade unions and the buildings and structures. Template should probably be named {{tl|Trinidad-stub}} as the geo-stub template is {{tl|Trinidad-geo-stub}}.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''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
*'''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 825:
{{sfp create}}
Following in the footprints of such stubs as {{tl|Babylon5-stub}}, {{tl|StarTrek-stub}} and {{tl|EastEnders-stub}}, the Battlestar Galactica stub category would categorize the large (and ever-growing) number of BSG related articles that need work. --[[User:BlueSquadronRaven|<font color="blue">'''BlueSquadron'''</font><font color="black">'''Raven'''</font>]] 22:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
*There actually used to be one of these, but it was deleted as underused and poorly named (it was at BG-stub)... but if you're right about this being fast-growing, perhaps it's more viable now. There appears to be a WikiProject, albeit a small one, so that cuts the necessary stubcount down to about 30. Is this likely to have 30 current articles that can use it? If so, I don't see any problems with a {{tl|BattlestarGalactica-stub}}. But I'd like to know the numbers first! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*(ec)Assuming there's at least 30 (given that there's [[WP:BSG]]), seems sensible. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:A quick look through [[:Category:Battlestar Galactica]] and subcategories came up with fifty articles marked as stubs, spanning both the old and new versions of the show, in articles on episodes, actors, characters and miscellaneous subjects. --[[User:BlueSquadronRaven|<font color="blue">'''BlueSquadron'''</font><font color="black">'''Raven'''</font>]] 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Question''' If this stub category meets approval, how would people feel if I created it as either {{tl|BSG-stub}} or {{tl|Galactica-stub}} for sake of brevity? --[[User:BlueSquadronRaven|<font color="blue">'''BlueSquadron'''</font><font color="black">'''Raven'''</font>]] 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Personally I've no objection to {{tl|Galactica-stub}}, but I'd have a BIG objection to BSG-stub. [[BSG]] is a disambiguation page, to start with, and it's not instantly obvious to an outsider what BSG would stand for - see my note above as to one of the reasons the original Battlestar Galactica stub was deleted. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::[[Galactica]] is also a disambig page, as it turns out, however, it's not as extensive as [[BSG]] and the Battlestar reference trumps the other two, I think. Unless there's further objections, I'll make it Galactica-stub. --[[User:BlueSquadronRaven|<font color="blue">'''BlueSquadron'''</font><font color="black">'''Raven'''</font>]] 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I'd support that template name. Note that the category should use lower-case 's': {{cl|Battlestar Galactica stubs}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 838:
===New Zealand structures===
{{sfp create}}
I've just been through {{cl|New Zealand stubs}} sorting out the new templates, one of which was NZ-struct-stub, currently upmerged into {{cl|Oceanian building and structure stubs}}. I was surprised to discover 70 stubs that could take the NZ-struct-stub template - enough for a separate category. it would leave the Oceanian parent a little thin at 41 stubs, but I'll have a hunt aroundf to see if that can be increased (in any case, it would be 41 stubs plus plus four child categories, so it's not ''too'' dreadful). I'd therefore like to propose a separate {{cl|New Zealand building and structure stubs}}. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*'''Support'''. fits right in with the other "building and structure" stubs, from what I can see. I say we do it. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*Support. Small size of parent isn't an issue, as it's holding sensible subcats. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 12:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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 892:
*{{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}}
Note that lower order stubs (such as {{tl|sauropod-stub}} may also be useful, since simply dividing dinosaurs into ornithischia and saurischia is still going to leave two fairly large categories.
Note also that I ''haven't'' done a tally, so these are on the proviso that they're each a reasonable level. I doubt these will all be viable, but several of them will be, and at the very least templates for the others may be worthwhile, even if upmerged into larger categories. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:Possibly {{tl|theropod-stub}}, especially for those which are now classified with both {{tl|dinosaur-stub}} and {{tl|paleo-bird-stub}} (the latter could usually be retained). There are [[Fossil_birds#Aves_incertae_sedis|several taxa]] for which this would apply. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Going by the perm-cats, here's what seems to be viable (or ballpark-close):
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
::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
What about splitting paleontologist-stub (which presently, like paleo-stub, captures non-dinosaur entries as well)? [[User:Jackrepenning|Jackrepenning]] 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:{{cl|Paleontologist stubs}} only has 83 stubs - not big enough to really consider splitting. And in any case, a significant proportion of paleontologists would be involved in the study of both dinosaurs and other fauna of the same era, so splitting it could be a problem. If we were to split it, splitting by nationality would probably be a more sensible way to go, as per other bio-stub types. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::I concur. There's only three permanent subcats by paleo-speciality, dinos not being one of them. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This seems to have been more contentious than I initially thought... still, there seems to be enough support at least for the following:
Line 926:
*{{tl|paleo-fish-stub}}
*{{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}}
Revisiting the dinosaur category at a later date seems like a reasonable option - at least this has opened us up to some possibilities such as splitting out theropods. Unless there are any objections, the five above at least seem like they can be proceeded with. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:''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 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>
Line 973:
{{sfp create}}
A couple new stub types are requested; one for 1960s albums in general, and one for 1960s rock albums. At present we have a 1960s pop album stub, but none for 1960s albums in general or for rock albums in particular. There are presently stub templates for pop albums, rock albums, and albums in general for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Adding the two missing 1960s templates would make sense and help to classify things better. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Owen]] 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*Sounds like a reasonable idea, assuming there are plenty of stubs - any idea of the numbers? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**I count... 12. Total, between the two. However, I was only looking in the album-stubs (obviously many have already been moved into more specific types, especially by genre), and many (many, many) album stubs lack genre (or artist) categories, or by-years categories, or both, so the actual potential population could be anything, really. Like Grutness, I'd be all in favour of one or both, if they're at all sensibly-sized. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
***I've been working on cleaning out the rock album stubs category, and it's looking like there's quite a lot of 1960s albums listed there. It's hard to give any accurate count, but even by the most conservative estimate there's well over 30 rock albums. I haven't looked so much at general 1960s albums yet, though I'm sure that one would be put to good use as well. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Owen]] 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 996:
#FWIW, there's also considerable undersorting, with about 70 bio-stubs and 30 geo-stubs in there. I've added some lists at [[User:Grutness/NZ stub split]]. both of the ones I found for the three proposed splits and those which could do with restubbing if anyone feels like some work :)
#There are also nearly 40 potential NZ-tv-stubs... something to possibly consider in future (but not now).
[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:Further comment - the tv stubs would tie in with the proposed by-continent split from last month. it would take the oceania total very close to the 60 mark. Any thoughts, Alai? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::What I'd failed to notice, though, is that there's already a TV stub for the Aussies. However, 40 stubs and a sub-type wouldn't be disgraceful. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:50, 4 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 1,016:
* '''Kein Problem'''. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''''Klein'' Problem''' (but only slight). be aware that this will probably overlap to a considerable extent with nazi-stub. Other than that, I don't see much of a problem, so make that a '''ja''' from me. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**I'd have had that worry myself, were this a count based on perm-cats, but as it's double-stubbing, it seems relatively safe. (I won't swear that none of them aren't ''treble''-stubbed -- I haven't checked.) Not that it would be the first time that someone has told me with a straight face that something can be both an x-stub and a y-stub, but isn't an x-y-stub. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:09, 10 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 1,035:
This would be a decent-sized amount out of Chinese people stubs and would help keep military personnel stubs under 5 pages (currently they're just under). I've found a good deal of articles that'd fit. [[User:Crystallina|Crystallina]] 05:32, 20 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>
[[Category:WikiProject Stub sorting archives
| |||