Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m introduction |
m archiving |
||
Line 1:
{{Archive}}
This is an archive of discussions from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals]] for the month of November 2006. Please move completed
Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive|archive summary]].
Line 12:
**{{tl|sfp top}} for customized result description (use <nowiki>{{sfp top|result}}</nowiki>).
*Discussion footer: {{tl|sfd bottom}}
===1960s albums===
{{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]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
**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)
***I just [[WP:Ignore all rules|went ahead]] and started the [[:Category:1960s_rock_album_stubs|rock stub category]]. The other category is necessarily simply because it is the root of two existing categories (1960s rock albums, and 1960s pop albums). [[User:Sarge Baldy|Owen]] 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
****So far as I know, there's nothing in the guidelines to the effect that the stub hierarchy must be a [[complete lattice]] (and by the self-defeating logic of IAR, presumably if there were, we'd either follow or ignore it at whim), so I don't see any particular necessity if there's little in the way of population. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*****Well, think about it this way. If we empty out lower level categories, does it make sense to delete them? If only 14 articles remain in [[:Category:Stubs]], is that a reason to delete the stub category as unnecessary? Not really, because organizationally it makes sense to have it. We don't delete stub categories when the stubs are moved into more specific categorizations, because even if the category appears nonessential, it's better to have things as close as possible to where they should be. It also makes categorization confusing for editors, who for the most part would assume if there is no categorization for 1960s albums stubs, there wouldn't be for anything more specific. Anyway, the hierarchy is now a complete lattice. I've classified 24 articles as [[:Category:1960s album stubs|1960s album stubs]]. I'm sure that a number more exist, and not too worried about it being an unpopulated category. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Owen]] 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
******I prefer to think about it this way: [[WP:STUB]]. {{cl|stubs}} is (in effect at least) at the root of the hierarchy: we don't delete it because it's constantly filling up, only to be "diffused" downwards, not because it's inherently undersized, ''never'' having reached the target size (as you appear to be rationalising on the expectation of). If it's not in fact in due course un''der''populated, fair enough, but your "IAR, organisationally it makes sense" rationale, could just as well be applied to any old category with 24 stubs, and if iterated (un)suitably would end up duplicating a large portion of the category space as stub types, very many of them counterproductively small for the purposes of editors finding a reasonable density of reasonably related articles. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*******I'm not sure I understand your complaints. I also notice that you created the 1970s album stubs category, which was apparently also out of process. That category isn't much larger than the one I created. And I'm not saying I created it simply because it makes organizational sense, although I feel that it does. Something in the range of 1500 articles are currently classified as being albums in the 1960s. Having a stub type for these articles is useful, and keeps clutter from the higher levels of classification. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Owen]] 06:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
********I'm not sure how to complain more understandably. Excessively small stub types are counter-productive to stub "management", because they a) needlessly multiply the entities involved, and b) leave stubs to languish in categories likely to have little foot-traffic. The 70s type has two perfectly decently-sized sub-types, and if it wasn't mentioned explicitly in a proposal here, it was certainly within the "spirit" of a related proposal. IARing and 'organisational sense' ''were'' the justifications you offered when asked about size, and they make a poor precedent as they can be applied to just about anything. Various bits and bobs of album stub hierarchy are indeed persistently oversized, which makes a somewhat stronger one, but 24 articles is still a large stretch. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*********[[:Category:1960s album stubs]] is NOT an "excessively small stub type". I've been adding new stubs to the category, and it currently holds 66. By the time I'm done working there could be well over 300. IARing was ''not'' a justification for the size. It was a justification for ignoring the typical wait period before starting to stub articles. The reason I chose to ignore this wait period was because I was motivated to work on these categories. In a week, I probably wouldn't be. I've spent hours today working on these, and I find your reaction baffling. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Owen]] 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
**********And NOW (to coin a case convention) you decide to mention the size, after repeatedly defending your inalienable right to create two stub types on the basis of 24 stubs? I asked specifically about size; your later comment, which your indentation would suggest was a reply to mine, was, one might infer, IARing in that regard (as opposed to just IA comments, too). Personally, I couldn't care less about the waiting period, if the end result is unaffected. I'm baffled as to what you find baffling: you've taken me on a pointless digression about the stub size guidelines, and now ''you'' are wondering why? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 08:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
***********I just said that the stub category has well over 24 stubs. At present count it has 119 stubs. You seem to have misinterpreted me, as I never said anything about any "inalienable right" to create stub categories with 24 stubs. Obviously we were not communicating. I said that I created the 1960s rock albums by way of IAR; then I said that I would probably work on the 1960s albums stubs because it made organizational sense. I linked to IAR under the text "went ahead". I thought that made it obvious that my use of IAR was to ignore the seven day period. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was using IAR to create stub categories that "made organizational sense", since I never talked about IAR in relation to organization. What I found baffling was your seeming hostility to my efforts, and what I took as your not assuming good faith in my actions. Hopefully this matter is settled. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Owen]] 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
************I wasn't misinterpreting, but rather paraphrasing, but yes, there seems to have been the proverbial failure to communicate. I'm sorry if I appeared to be hostile, that wasn't my intention, and nor did I at any point doubt your good faith. I still find it hard, even with the benefit of hindsight, to put any other reading on your earlier comments other that the "rule" you were "ignoring" was the size guidelines, given the on-going exchange in which you did nothing to dispell the impression that that was the topic ay hand; oh well. The main lesson I take from this is that doing something 'per IAR' (as opposed to for some actual specific reason) leaves everyone as wise as before (though I may be biased about that, since that's rather what I've thought for a long time). At any rate, I'm indeed now more than happy with the stub types -- another panel pin in album-stub, hopefully. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 08:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===New Zealand split===
{{sfp create}}
A few suggested splits:
#I've run a bit of a quick survey of the 750-odd New Zealand stubs, and found just under 100 which could be given a {{tl|NZ-org-stub}} (and accompanying {{cl|New Zealand organisation stubs}}).
#There's also about 80 which would use the proposed but never implemented {{tl|NZ-ethno-stub}} or {{tl|Maori-stub}} (whichever was decided - I don't recall).
#There are also now 43 {{tl|NZ-struct-stub}}s... not enough for a separate category, but getting on that way, and probably enough for an upmerged template.
#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]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
: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]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::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)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Japanese rail subtypes===
{{sfp create}}
Also getting close to a fifth page. The stations would be an "over-viable" type, though we might want to create it anyway, partly as a container for the following:
*{{cl|Miyagi Prefecture railway station stubs}} 168
*{{cl|Yamagata Prefecture railway station stubs}} 71
I was also going to propose {{cl|Japanese railway line stubs}}, at 60, but false positives appears to reduce that slightly, so I won't. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|German World War II stubs}}===
{{sfp create}}
I've probably mooted this one before, but as there's several possible axis of split, I'll open this up for fresh discussion. I'm attracted to this one as double-stubbing puts 76 in {{cl|German_military_stubs}} and {{cl|World_War_II_stubs}}, so it's the easiest one to do. (Rogue bluelink's nothing to do with me, btw, and nor is it a 'live' stub type.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
* Seems sensible enough, and segues nicely from the existing stub types. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''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]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
**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)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|Japanese Go biography stubs}}===
{{sfp create}}
Believe it or not, there's 82 articles double-stubbed into {{cl|Go stubs}} and {{cl|Japanese people stubs}}; latter is oversized. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I remember seeing a lot of these in Japanese people stubs. [[User:Crystallina|Crystallina]] 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
| |||