Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2011/May: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:36, 13 September 2011

Revision as of 18:58, 22 March 2016

Line 106:

==={{tl|Monument-stub}}?===

{{sfp top|no consensus, not created}}

While it is true that {{cl|Sculpture stubs}} doesn't yet need splitting (and has quite a number of sculpt''or'' articles in it which shouldn't be there, I think a separate stub for monuments and memorials would be useful and would almost certainly get to the threshold for a separate category ({{cl|Monument and memorial stubs}}). A quick coulty shows that over 450 of the current sculpture stubs have either the word "monument" or "memorial" as part of their name, and it's likely that many others in the category would qualify for this proposed stub type. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

*I'm not 100% convinced by the template name, the reason being that in the Netherlands the equivalent of a graded property or NRHP is called a reiksmonument often shortened to monument so things could get confusing. I dont think {{tl|memorial-stub}} would be much better either and putting both in there would be unecessarily large template name. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] ([[User talk:Waacstats|talk]]) 09:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Line 111 ⟶ 112:

::I was just pointing out that linking monuments to sculptures would be problematic. A {{tl|Reiksmonument-stub}} would be the dutch equivalent of {{tl|NRHP-stub}}, may be a {{tl|Sculpture-monument-stub}} would be better.[[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] ([[User talk:Waacstats|talk]]) 23:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

:::Given the name of the opermcat, perhaps two separate templates: {{tl|Sculpture-monument-stub}} and {{tl|Memorial-stub}}? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

===New moth templates and categories===