Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/June 2007: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
|||
Line 17:
{{sfp top|create Hebrew-year-stub}}
Now at 900ish, this seems to be due to: a) massive double-stubbing with synagogue-stub (which unless I'm missing something, would seem to be profoundly redundant), and the creation of large numbers of articles like [[5881 (Hebrew year)]] (that's 2120-2121 in Gregorian money). If the latter aren't going to be deleted or merged, as would otherwise seem sensible, perhaps we should consider a {{cl|Hebrew year stubs}}. (The former I take it we should just de-double-stub). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*Hopefully the new {{tl|Chabad-stub}} will reduce the load a little (does this cover Hasidic dynasties?), as would removing the extra stub from the synagogue stubs and moving the -bio- and -org- stubs into their correct subcategories. A very rough estimate based on one column of {{cl|Judaism stubs}} suggests that would remove about 25% of the stubs. Over 200 year articles do exist, though, so {{cl|Hebrew year stubs}} sounds like a very good idea. Hopefully between th the sorting and year subcat the main {{cl|Judaism stubs}} can be reduced to about 500 stubs. A {{tl|Judaism-school-stub}} might also be worth considering, by the looks of it. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**There's already an upmerged {{tl|Yeshiva-stub}}, though if I understand the intended scope correctly, it doesn't cover all Jewish schools (i.e., not "day schools"). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:34, 3 June 2007 (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 39:
*{{cl|Tyrol geography stubs}} 61
I suggest templates only for Upper Austria (42), Vorarlberg (39), Salzburg state (37) and Vienna (11), though I wouldn't be surprised if three of those were viable with further sorting of the uncatted rump. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Is that all the states? If not, I'd also support templates for any others. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**That's all. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' [[User:Aelfthrytha|Aelfthrytha]] 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 115:
:'''Qualified support''' templates but not categories. Namibia cricketers does have 74 articles but not all are stub articles and unless 60 are stubs I am against a category. As for the split of west indies, it is not yet so large as to be needed and I don't know if this would be the most useful way to split (though it maty help popoulate the relvent island bio-stub categories). [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::I actually took the liberty of creating a template for Namibia and 73 of the 74 articles are stubs. For the West Indies, perhaps a national level split that feeds into the current category?--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
*Yes to Namibia and Kenya, but no to the WI split. They play as a unitary side internationally, and splitting them by island is not much different to splitting soccer players by team. I'd prefer a split by bowler/batsman/wicketkeeper/all-0rounder, or by era. I'd strongly advise goiung to the Cricket WikiProject to ask for advice on this one. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::This hasn't been raised at [[WT:CRICKET]] yet (I'll put a note there), but I can confidently predict that the answer will be "no" to splitting the West Indies: in cricket, they're regarded as one country.
::I believe we've previously had this discussion for England, and decided that there was no clear distinction between batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders; and by era has awkward boundaries. In the end, England-cricket-bio-stub has split off England-international-cricket-bio-stub for cricketers who have represented the [[England national cricket team]] at [[Test cricket|Test]] or [[One-Day International]] level. That's probably the way forward for other countries as and when a split is needed.
Line 124:
I agree with [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] re West Indies. In terms of international cricket, the various states are combined as a geographical unit. Individually, the state teams are the equivalent of English county teams. Splitting West Indies by state would be artificial and misleading. No problem with Namibia or Kenya if the numbers are increasing. --<b>[[User:BlackJack|BlackJack]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:BlackJack|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:Ok, well, if we aren't going to split the West Indies cricket stub, then we should create sportspeople stubs for Jamaica and Trinidad to begin with.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::I can buy that as an option, double-stubbing with the WI-cricket and individual country-sports-bio stubs. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::Trinidad certainly looks viable as it currently doen't have a footy-bio-stub and I'm guessing atleast some of the players in the world cup only have stub articles and it has a template fot athletics-bios with 40+ so should easy to populate. I don't know about Jamaica as it already has an athletics-bio category. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::Jamaica is well sorted in the sports category, with footy and athletics categories. Most of the exisiting stubs in "Jamaica-bio-stub" are sportspeople and the 70 + cricketers seem to be mostly stubs, so I'd suggest an upmerged stub for now with the likelihood of a category needed in the near future. While I'm here, can someone tell me why cricketer categories are mostly "foo cricketers" not "fooian cricketers"?--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::An example should make the reason for that clear - [[Tony Greig]] was born in South Africa, but played cricket for England. Therefore he's South African, but an England cricketer. [[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 212:
Over 600 articles and the entire first page is either drafts or seasons, don't think that we have enough for a drft-stub but certainly we have enough for a season stub I propose {{Cl|American football season stubs}} with the template called {{Tl|AmericanFootball-season-stub}} or {{Tl|Amfoot-season-stub}}. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:After a recount we do have enough for a {{Cl|American football draft stubs}} again fed by which ever is deemed more acceptable {{Tl|AmericanFootball-draft-stub}} or {{Tl|Amfoot-draft-stub}}
::The main template in the parent is {{tl|Americanfootball-stub}}, so these should follow suit. Strong support on the first, and milder support on the second, BTW. [[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 286:
{{sfp create}}
The region cat {{cl|Île-de-France geography stubs}} is oversized now, so time to split into departments. Only this one is clearly over threshold at the moment, at 409 (cough). However, some others are close-ish Val-de-Marne, 49; Yvelines, 41; Seine-Saint-Denis, 40; Essonne, 39; and Val-d'Oise, 37. Paris is only at 32, but when one adds in the {{tl|Streets of Paris-stub}} (see /D), it's also rather close. I'll create templates for all of them, and then see what happens. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:As I said at /D, I object to adding the streets to that section. Road-stubs aren't listed as geo-stubs for anywhere else, so why Paris? Far better to make a France-road-stub and category for it to upmerge to. As to Seine-et-Marne's category and the other templates, though, that sounds fine. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::I don't especially care in this instance, since one the first one's done it'll be off my to-do list (hopefully for some considerable time), but as I said the previous time you made this objection, I don't see the expansion-oriented logic of lumping urban streets, and articles like [[Place du Colonel Fabien]], in with say [[A151 autoroute]] (not marked as a stub, but looks like one to me). Some common sense about when things "must" be sorted by type (as well as when they must not be) would be a plan. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I just don't see why France should be treated any differently to the UK, US, Australia, and Canada - in each of those cases, urban roads are not treated as geo-stubs, they quite logically get road-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::I don't recall suggesting it be treated differently. I'm suggesting they all be treated as above: we've had this same conversation about some of those very instances. Your assertion about what's "logical" I've already disputed, and your claim as to how they are actually treated seems dubious to me: care for a wager as to how many 'urban neighbourhood articles with "street" or similar in the title' are actually currently tagged with -geo-stubs? This is probably butting heads to little short term purpose, however, since as I say Paris-geo-stub isn't going to be a priority for me, and I'm not holding my breath regarding France-road-stub. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::If they are stubbed that way they shouldn't be - and I can guarantee that only a very small percentage are. {{cl|Road stubs}} isn';t even a subcat of {{cl|Geography stubs}}, and neither is {{cl|Rail stubs}}, for exactly the same reason. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::::My point is that if your argument is "facts on the ground", then you might in theory want to determine and take account of what said facts are, as opposed to replying on some internal model of what they "ought" to be. It doesn't matter what the categorisation of road-stubs is: the point is, ''are'' these road stubs, in any useful sense? Looks to me like a "no" on that one. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Strange - looks to me like a "yes" on that one. They are articles about roads. Those articles are stubs. It doesn't matter whether those roads are called streets, or that they are in Paris or anywhere else - the fact is that they are, by definition, road stubs. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::::::Strange indeed. Have you actually looked at the contents of those articles, or are you just taking it as axiomatic that anything with (in this case), "Avenue", "Boulevard", "Passage", "Place", "Quai" or "Rue" in the title ''must'' be a "road transport" article, most usefully expanded by "roadfan" types, and horribly mis-sorted if tagged alongside "neighbourhoods of Paris" types of article (to say nothing of other things that tend to get tagged with -geo-, especially when there's no other regional type to be had). Or is the error mine in assuming that there's some chance of you taking utility into account (kinda why we're bothering to do this in the first place), as opposed to essentially vacuous ontological arguments? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:51, 20 June 2007 (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 325:
:Fully support split & willing to help populate as time permits. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Support; good idea. [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Support - will sit nicely along glaciology-stub. With the usual caveat about volcanology (vulanology?) not being for actual volcanoes, of course. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:Support. Makes sense to me with the assumption that all these stubs will be under the roof of Geology project. [[User:Solarapex|Solarapex]] 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::They'll all be subcats of {{cl|geology stubs}}, and a project link or banner on the category page wouldn't seem amiss. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 341:
Similar deal to below. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*third time '''Speedy''' support. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy support for the first four'''. I'm not happy with lumping the Carolinas together, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**Hey, it's good enough for the NFL... That was a typo, fixed. (If one really had to lump the two, I think "Carolinas" would be more usual, though the USCB defines also smaller component regions of the South.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***"Nothing could be finah than to be in Carolinah in the moooooooorning..." (and the song never says which one)...[[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
****...and I always thought that referred to someone's name :) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
***** :O !! :P [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 17:56, 20 June 2007 (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 369:
{{sfp nocreate}}
Can't find it and not sure how to put the info across as an NPOV. Will suggest stub. Can anyone help? <br />[[User:AVISSER|Cookie Monster]] 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not quite sure what, if anything, this has to do with proposing stub templates or categories, which is what this page is for. [[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>
==={{tl|Ancient-Euro-bio-stub}}===
{{sfp create}}
This one may need a little brainstorming from the WP:WSS regulars. During discussion with [[User: Apcbg]] about the unproposed discovery Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub, it occurred to me that a stub covering biographies of ancient Europeans not covered by the Roman or Greek stub types would probably be very useful and would almost certainly reach 60 stubs, with Thracians, Spartans, Celts, Teutons and the like. IIRC we recently had a similar call for an Etruscan-bio-stub, which this would also cover. It does face a couple of problems, however: defining "Ancient" and defining "Europe". Personally, I'd define Ancient as being the same as BC and would be lenient on Europe to include Phoenicians, Trojans and Carthaginians - none of whom could accuately be described as European. And if that was to be the coverage, it might need a better name ("Classical-bio-stub"?). Any thoughts? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::That would be a satisfactory solution I believe. Just one suggestion: Could we please illustrate the new Ancient-Euro-bio-stub with the picture used in Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub? It's the golden mask of a Thracian king, and reputedly the Thracians upheld the earliest cultural tradition in Europe (including the abovementioned 'peri-European' peoples too); as you possibly know the world's oldest gold (dated 46th century BC) was found near [[Varna Necropolis|Varna]]. [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] 12:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::Sounds reasonable - the only other thoughts I had were the statue of Boudicca in Westminster, UK, and the statue of the dying Gaul - neither of which would be easily recognisable at that size. Discussing the stub icon's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, though - I'd prefer to get the actual name and scope of the thing sorted out first! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::I'm not an expert on stub-template names, but 'Ancient-Europe-bio-stub' seems better to me; with 'Ancient-Euro-bio-stub' one would expect to see an 'Ancient-Dollar-bio-stub' too :-) [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::Heh. "Euro-" is used as a standard for Europe-related stub templates. Perhaps it should be the full word, but it would require a hell of a lot of work to get them all changed over to Europe. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::Just fine with me. [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Support''' per nom and the image of the Thracian gold mask is fine. I presume the category name (when we have 60 stubs) will be {{cl|Ancient European people stubs}} ? [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|C]]</sup> 07:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 422:
:I don't know what the solution is - perhaps I should stop creating all these stubs, and in fact, I'm pretty well done - I wanted to create stubs for all of the pathogens listed in the various disease lists. However, the issue is not really just restricted to 'stubs'. The 'Plant pathogens and diseases' category is now also very large. How could it be better organized? I noticed that the fungi category includes subcategories such as Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes. Most of the plant disease stubs are for Ascomycetes, however, very few have so far been added to this category. If they were, the category would also be large. There also some subcategories for specific genera. I don't know if we want to start creating genera specific stubs (e.g Fusarium pathogen stub, ...) or crop specific stubs (Canola disease stub ..), although the taxonomic approach seems to be one that has been used for the organization of plant species - although I'm not sure if this is also reflected in the plant stubs.[[User:Somanypeople|Somanypeople]] 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::That's really out of our brief. Perhaps the best solution would be for you to find whatever WikiProject is most involved with this subject and work out how to subdivide the main parent category - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants]], or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology]] perhaps, or maybe [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi]] or even [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology]]. That would make our job easier, too, since we can then divide the stub cats along whatever line the permcats are divided. If the stub category isn't going to grow much larger any time soon (and you did say you've more or less finished what you're doing), then we can hold off any split for a short while, at least. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::: Well as a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi]] I have been adding fungal plant diseases to their coverage but its quiet a small wikiproject. The majority of plant diseases are fungal, so the creation of a fungal plant disease catergory would, your correct, be huge. It may be best to divivde them by their hosts then. I suggest cereal disease stub, tree disease stub ect and I also suggest a general plant virus stub due to the number of viral family stub articles where all the members of that family are plant pathogens. Viruses also have a very large host range so it'd be harder to classify them that way. [[User:Million Moments|Million_Moments]] 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 434:
{{sfp top|create by continent}}
Mil-stub is 5 pages and needs a split. {{tl|Asia-mil-stub}}, {{tl|Africa-mil-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAm-mil-stub}} would be a good beginning and could also be the parent cat's to the existing x-mil-stub. Also, a {{tl|country-mil-stub}} would be useful.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the continent splits (plus, if deemed useful, simular for Oceania, CentralAm, Caribbean and MEast). Not so sure about the country-mil-stub, though - what would that be used for? If simply "Military of Foo"-type articles, wouldn't they be better simply given their respective continental-mil-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 458:
: Can't we do the old split into 50 templates and upmerge to the 4 regions. Otherwise no preference (both?) [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Trouble with that is there'll be a lot of multi-stubbing, as most railroads seem to cover more than one state, and in some cases a large number of states. I'll see if I can get some numbers of that, though... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:What about splitting out locomotives and/or trains? Would that reduce the burden any? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Hrm, not a bad plan... It's a little swamped in the numbers by the mass of railway operating companies, but if we smoosh together the contents of the {{cl|trains}} and {{cl|rolling stock}} (I'd have thought one would be a subcat of the other, but seemingly I'd have been wrong), there's around 80. It's a somewhat broad church, but at least it would separate them from the above. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::It would be especially useful to split out the paper railroads since I imagine that they are most likely to remain stubby and provide the worst inflation to the numbers. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 495:
{{sfp top|keep}}
This was created out-of-process back in January, and now that we have a related [[WP:SUMO|project]] I'd like to make it official. It's already populated with more than 60 articles. In addition, I believe every article in {{cl|Toshiyori}} should be here as well. Properly speaking this should be a subcat of {{cl|Sumo stubs}}, but I have no experience with this process so I'm not certain it ought to be created at this point even though it would be a great convenience for the project. What do people who know what they're doing here think? ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*Certainly at 65 stubs sumo-bio-stub is viable now, irrespective of whether there's a wikiproject. As far as sumo-stub is concerned, how many stubs are there likely to be about sumo that aren't biographies? Given that there's a wikiproject and this would be its primary stub, if there are 30 it seems a good idea. Even if there are slightly fewer than that, given that it's got a ready-made subcategory. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*If the numbers are utterly paltry, there's the option of creating it and upmerging the sumo-bios to "make up the numbers", for now. But if there's anything like a worthwhile number, I think 10-20+WPJ+subcat would be OK. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:23, 24 June 2007 (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 516:
==={{tl|GB-MP-stub}} / [[:Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1707-1800)]] ===
{{sfp top|create as GreatBritain-MP-stub}}
:''Moved from [[WP:SFD]] [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
'''Propose creation''' of new stub template, and associated category, plus renaming of another related stub category.<br />The existing {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is designed for [[Members of Parliament]] for the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]], which was only created in 1801 after the [[Acts of Union 1800]]. However, {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is also being being used for members of the predecessor [[Parliament of Great Britain]] (1707-1800), members of which should be categorised separately.<br />The proposed structure can be summarised as:
Line 523:
--[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*How is this for numbers - are there currently 60+ stubs which could do with this? If not, certainly an upmerged template is a good option until such time as there are. I agree about the change in the name of the category if a split is warranted. Not entirely convinced by the name GB-MP-stub, but I can't think of a better one... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*I don't have tools to allow an easy count, but I am currently running [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain]] through [[WP:AWB|AWB]] to split it into [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies|English]], [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Scottish constituencies|Scottish]] and [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Welsh constituencies|Welsh]] sub-categories, and I reckon that there are well over a hundred stub articles for which {{tl|GB-MP-stub}} would be useful. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*New cat would get 108, though there's the complication that 25 would have to be double-stubbed, so this isn't exactly what you'd call a "clean split". Also bear in mind that there's existing subcats by a) party, and b) constituent nation, as well as c) currency. Given that this is somewhat in the spirit of the third axis, whose permcat was deleted ({{cl|Current British MP stubs}}, {{cl|current British MPs}}), I wonder if we shouldn't save ourselves some work by waiting until the permcats stop to-ing and fro-ing, and then come up with a consistent scheme. Oh, and if this does go ahead, I'd favour {{tl|Britain-MP-stub}} for the template. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 569:
:Do you have a good template name in mind? [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|C]]</sup> 01:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'd suggest paralleling geo-term-stub and the like, and making it {{tl|poli-term-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 586:
{{sfp top|create Vojvodina t/c, hold off on Kosovo for now}}
{{cl|Serbia geography stubs}}. Discuss. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
:The words "Kosovo" and "can of worms" spring to mind. It would have been nice if the UN had decided what to do with that area by now... I suppose logically splitting out Kosovo and Vojvodina would mae sense, there's just the problems with the previous edit-war on the (since deleted) Kosovo template. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Indeed, though the worms are long since out the can, it's just a matter of how to re-dissect 'em. (BTW, you redirected it rather than deleting it, and it's been retranscluded on a number of articles since the last db dump, so actually Serbia would seem to be slightly over 800 if those were being present categorised as "Serbian" rather than "European".) Somewhat oddly, there's more Vojvodina articles than anywhere else ("Central" Serbia included), so splitting just those out would solve the numeric issue at a stroke, though it might look like shady dealing to split out one "autonomous province" (from the Serbian POV) and not the other. My feeling is presently that the least worst option would be to split both, but protetct both the template and the category -- in the latter case so that the edit wars don't simply move to supercatting, though that's possibly less disruptive in itself. (On which topic, it may be that it should be dual-supercatted with both "Europe" and "Serbia".) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
*We did have a consensus for a {{tl|Vojvodina-stub}} and I think a {{tl|Vojvodina-geo-stub}} at some point. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 632:
{{sfp top|create by genre}}
On the plus side, I've just sorted {{cl|electronic album stubs}} down from over 800, to 50 (including to a new 80s cat, which I speedied on the basis of the existing 90s and 00s). On the minus, {{cl|2000s electronic album stubs}} is now itself spilling onto a fifth page -- d'oh. It looks like {{cl|2000s DJ mix album stubs}} would be clearly viable at over 100. After that, Techno, Indietronica, House, Trip hop, Trance and Ambient all look in the just-about-viable range. There's also the inevitable overlap with hip hop, dance, rock (indie and otherwise), and experimental, so there's also the option of "2000s electronic <other descriptor> album stubs", but that seems a little too ad hoc without corresponding permcats. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:I don't suppose splitting by country of origin would help - UK-2000... US-2000... Euro-2000... Japan-2000...? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Albums don't seem to generally be categorised on that basis, and I'm a bit skeptical about whether it'd be of much use (though some markets do seem to be more distinct than others, it must be said). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Mmmm. And I suppose there's also be the possiible confusion of Euro-2000-techno with a stub for Eurodisco music. Sigh. Any other possibilities? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::There's been some support over at the WPJ for some-or-other sub-genre sub-cats, plus talk of tag-vetting and possible merging. I'll see if I can find the least-worst option as far as sub-genre overlap is concern. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:55, 4 July 2007 (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 641:
{{sfp top|create France-church-stub}}
{{tl|France-struct-stub}} contains 253 articles, of which 144+ would fit into the proposed. [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:Would it be easier to simply remove the churches with a France-church-stub? Chances are most of the reli-structs would be churches. Mind you, 253 isn't really a high priority split (600+ would be). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::France-reli-struct-stub seems more effective because it also covers the religious houses properly (16 at the moment but due to rise, as I am planning some additions), whereas they don't fit accurately under France-church-stub - which would not stop people trying to add it anyway. So a France-reli-struct-stub would avoid some future mess. Sorry if I have asked for it too early - I happened to be doing stuff in that area and it struck me as useful.[[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Don't mind about the "too early" aspect: I didn't give G. a hard time about wanting to split the Portuguese geos before they became "officially" oversized, after all. :) I'd tend to agree about the church-stub, though: wouldn't that help more with existing double-stubbing, and be a bit more focussed? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's a ''bit'' unfair... Portugal has about 700 geo-stubs excluding the one subtype already split out, so it is officially oversized. And splitting out the other six regions would give an average of 115 stubs per region. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::::<800 in any one category isn't oversized, for the (admittedly arbitrary) definition that's in use at /T (and if there's some other definition, no-one's ever made it clear to me). And my point is that you're conflating "viability" with "priority" (and some more, immediately above). It might be a reason to wonder "why are you bothering?", but not to oppose on those grounds alone. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Strange - I've always used<600, and I was pretty sure that was the standard definition used here, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned Portugal in the first place. And it's not really a conflation, just an added extra reason for splitting. Given an (assumed) overpopulation, it would have priority. And given that it could be split into categories of 100+, it would have viability. So it would have had both priority and viability, whereas the French structure one would only have viability but not priority. But we're digressing from the point of this discussion... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::::::We digressed some time ago, but I think we're largely agreeing past each other, give or take. I do hope we don't decide it is/was/should be 600 for the foreseeable future, since that'd be another two ''hundred'' categories on the "to-do" list at a stroke. (Always assuming anyone is paying any attention to that in the first place, of course, about which I'm now seriously wondering.) ::::::One might well argue that anything over a listing page is to some extent sub-optimal, and everything's a sliding scale thereafter. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Church-stub is great for churches, but not for monasteries - which are reli-structs but not churches. It is true that there aren't great numbers of monastery stub articles involved at the moment, but I am hoping to add a quantity soon, to which reli-struct could also apply - otherwise they still have to be double-stubbed. However, to be fair, the great majority of the existing articles are cathedrals, and the church-stub would be v useful for those. [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 680:
*{{tl|CentroPT-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|NortePT-geo-stub}}</s> see below
If someone prefers the districts to the regions, then that's just as good, but 700/20 doesn't really guarantee categories. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:'''Update''' - I've left a note at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portuguese geography]] about this. Hopefully someone there will be able to advise us about regions vs districts. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
::Further update - what little comment there has been there suggests that districts would be better that regions, even though that would mean less categories. The regions seem like a new concent that is still having its rough edges smoothed off. {{tl|Madeira-geo-stub}} is still a reasonable split by itself, leaving 18 other templates, probably mostly upmerged:
::*{{tl|Lisboa-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Lisbon-geo-stub}} or vice versa)
Line 701:
::*{{tl|Braga-geo-stub}}
::*{{tl|VianadoCastelo-geo-stub}} (or {{tl|VianaDoCastelo-geo-stub}})
::[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::Good plan on the redirects. :) It'd be an option to upmerge to ''regional'' categories for a number of these, right? (I realize this goes seriously wonky in a couple of cases, like Santarém, which we'd have to leave feeding into the parent.) It's neither fish nor foul, but... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
::Possibly, but the borders don't seem to match up very well, unfortunately. Let's see whether any get to 60 by themselves first - we can always change the pointing on the templates afterwards. As for the redirects, yeah,w ell, otherwise we'd have the usual arguments :). BTW, before making these it'll be worthwhile checking that these names are unique and that we don't run into a region of Brazil called Vila Real or similar problem. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:::I wouldn't go so far as to say they match up ''well'', but they seem to do so enough for at least some upmerging, and my guess is to the point of numerical viability. But no hurry. On uniqueness, I just generally go by what's camped out on the permcat name first (or article name, if there's no permcat). If that's not been disambiguated, then it may not be necessary (or it may be we have wacky permcats -- it's been known to happen...). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:52, 3 July 2007 (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 721:
*{{cl|United Kingdom publishing company stubs}} 65
Most of the parentages should be obvious; two that are less so are Hospital_stubs+United_Kingdom_medical_organisation_stubs and Asian_building_and_structure_stubs+Malaysia_geography_stubs (the latter perhaps being food for thought as to what -geo- stubs are actually used for, "on the ground".) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*Malaysia's been long overdue for its own struct stub template at least, and now a category seems a good move - and like similar struct stubs, its parents should be {{cl|Asian building and structure stubs}} and {{cl|Malaysia stubs}} (not {{cl|Malaysia geography stubs}}, since buildings aren't normally grouped in with geo-stubs). I'd be inclined to put the UK hospitals in {{cl|Hospital stubs}}, {{cl|United Kingdom medical organisation stubs}} ''and'' {{cl|United Kingdom building and structure stubs}}, since the articles are likely to be at least in part about the buildings themselves, much like with theatre stubs and museum stubs. Yes to all the others (72 Zimbabwean sculptor stubs? Whoda thought...?), though I'd ask whether the NYC and Pittsburgh geo-stubs are likely to affect the way the rest of the state-geo-stubs are likely to be split in future... will it make for problems with Penn and NYState later? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
**I forgot the ob. whoda thought?: thanks for correcting that omission. :) I shouldn't have said "parentage", I really meant "constituents of the double-stubbing" (though in most cases they're the same thing). I don't think splitting by city is going to be a problem; elsewhere we've split by county, but then we tend to end up upmerging them to μSAs, MSAs, CSAs, unofficial regions with articles defining their scope, or totally made up ones. Cities of significant size will invariably correspond to (the population centres of) *SAs, so they can just be made a subcat. (Chicago and Chicagoland are already done this way, for example.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:12, 19 June 2007 (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>
| |||