Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 186:
* '''Comment''' Will this replace {{tl|UK-road-stub}} on those pages or be additional? I would prefer it to be additional and if so, would '''Agree'''. [[User:Regan123|Regan123]] 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
**I would think that it would replace UK-road on those pages because London is more specific than UK. [[User:Amalas|<
***The problem that may arise with that is that the roads are part of a national scheme, whereas the streets and squares etc are of a local perspective. I think these need to kept apart, so should this therefore become {{tl|London-street-stub}}? [[User:Regan123|Regan123]] 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
****I think I see. For roads that say, continue outside of London (like an interstate highway here in the US [[Interstate_70|example]]), I could see both a UK-road and a London-road. However, for streets that are only located inside London, a simple London-road would suffice. (I hope I'm understanding you correctly). [[User:Amalas|<
*****I suggest we don't try to make a road/street distinction; it'd just get completely confusing. (I'm sure we still have numerous -street-stub redirects to -road-stubs from a previous sprees by SPUI and/or FoN.) Looking at the current London-stubs, I assume this would be primarily for the likes of [[Gillespie Road]]. Casting around for an example of a trunk road contained entirely in London, I notice that [[A1200 road]] isn't a London-stub at present, so I assume it's not really what the proposer had in mind. I don't much mind how these are scoped to make the distinction, but I'd be against double-stubbing with both parent and child, since that's ultimately to frustrate the size-management aspect of stub-sorting. (We're nowhere near ''having'' to split the UK-roads on size, but I wouldn't bet against it happening eventually.) OTOH, if we're doing this purely in reaction to Richmond-geo-stub, perhaps we should give it a miss for the time being. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
*OK - a few points, since I proposed this:
Line 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 540:
:''So this is now all about what this project wants and not about helping out [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich|WikiProject Munich]]'' - no, it's all about keeping the munich-stub types in some sort of line with the types used by the various wikiprojects around wikipedia, and also keeping the number of stub types to a reasonable, practical level. Its for this reason we have overarching projects like stub sorting, to help the entirelty of wikipedia run smoothly. Same reason as there are pages like CFD, for cases where one type of category runs contrary to the way others on Wikipedia run. You are actually hurting your wikiproject considerably by continuing to argue for this micro-split of articles, since it will create far more work for anyone involved in your project that having a single stub type would. You have, BTW, shown very little willingness to compromise. Your suggestion for changing from severn stub types to seven stub types with slightly different parameters is hardly a compromise situation, especially since it has been repeatedly explained that the biggest problem is that there is no need for you to have so many stub types in the first place. So far, the main thing have shown is an inability to follow [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Is there any way we could discuss this at one venue? There's talk over at [[WP:SFD]] and here, and this is getting confusing. [[User:Amalas|<
:I agree. perhaps the SFD page is a better place, since there's not much point in proposing a whole range of stubs that have already been created. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This WikiProject is a joke. [[User:Kingjeff|Kingjeff]] 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 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>
| |||