Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2015/October: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:04, 9 December 2015

Revision as of 16:46, 10 August 2016

Line 8:

==={{tl|Minnesota-geo-stub}} split===

{{sfp top|create upmerged stubs, and regional cats if possible}}

Very large stub cat at the moment. I just finished populating all the upmerged stubs and there's still 1,255 sitting in there (although now only 250~ of them use the generic, parent stub). There is now one which can be speedily given its own category: {{tl|CookCountyMN-geo-stub}}, which has [https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=CookCountyMN-geo-stub&namespace=10#bottom 68 transclusions] and so is eligible under S1. None of the others are, however, but I still think we need ''some'' to be given their own subcats, at least. There were a few more with 40+, but most sit in the region of 20~ transclusions. Is that enough to warrant their own subcat?

Line 17 ⟶ 19:

::Having just run through some of that category to do some WikiProject tagging, another idea that came to mind would be splitting it out thematically. It looks like most of the stubs are either lakes, rivers/streams or populated places. Perhaps dividing it up along those sorts of criteria would be a little more cut-and-dried and still get things down to more manageable sizes? [[User:Nsteffel|Nsteffel]] ([[User talk:Nsteffel|talk]]) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::IMHO we should stick to using regions, however defined, as that's the way the rest of the US geo stubs are sorted. The trick, as you say, is finding out what the regions are according to reliable sources. Just saying. [[User:Pegship|Pegship]] ([[User talk:Pegship|talk]]) 00:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

===Aussie Rules competition stubs===