Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:22, 15 November 2006

Revision as of 00:54, 18 November 2006

Line 12:

**{{tl|sfp top}} for customized result description (use <nowiki>{{sfp top|result}}</nowiki>).

*Discussion footer: {{tl|sfd bottom}}

=== University of Virginia stubs ===

{{sfp nocreate}}

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|<font color="maroon"><b>~ Amalas</b></font>]] [[User talk:Amalas|<font color="navy">rawr]] [[Special:Contributions/Amalas|^{=^_^=}</font>]] 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

=== Haitian people stubs ===

{{sfp create}}

Propose [[:Category:archivin]]. Both parent cats, [[:Category:Haiti stubs]] and [[:Category:Caribbean people stubs]], have over 200 articles. At least 70 articles would fall under the new cat. [[User:Jwillbur|Jwillbur]] 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|Canadian comedian stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

I haven't done much hunting yet, but I'm amazed such a category doesn't already exist (esp since UK-comedian and US-comedian already do). Comedy is practically one of Canada's biggest exports. --[[User:Arvedui|Arvedui]] 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:Those latter exist because there were a sufficient number of such stubs, and because they were urgently needed due to a vast excess of stubs in the parent. (Not because we think USians and Brits are funnier than Canadians. Necessarily.) I can find 28 possibilities: is there in fact anything like 60? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Which main category did you check? At present, there are about 1100 people in the Category:Canadian people stubs along with ~450 in Category:Comedian stubs. I can't believe at least 60 of them wouldn't be both Canadian and comedians. Is there an easier way to check than by looking at each one in turn? (By the way, is it kosher to put something in more than one stub category at once?) --[[User:Arvedui|Arvedui]] 02:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I only checked the former; throwing in the latter, it does seem to just about creep over threshold (62). My 'easier way' is a little on the difficult side: see the discussion on tools at [[WT:WSS]]. Adding multiple stub tags is OK, and sometimes necessary (i.e. to this point, a Canadian comedian should in theory have been in both of the categories you mention). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Oh, that's a support, btw. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Splits of dinosaur-stub and paleo-stub===

{{sfp top|create archosaur-stub, pterosaur-stub, ichthyosaur-stub, paleo-fish-stub, paleo-mammal-stub}}

The recent sfd discussion of the horrible "dinobird-stub" has alerted me to the close-to-overpopulated dinosaur and paleontology stub categories, which have about 1200 stubs between the two of them. I'd like to suggest the following as potential splits:

From {{tl|dinosaur-stub}}:

*{{tl|ornithschia-stub}}

*{{tl|saurischia-stub}}

From {{tl|paleo-stub}}:

*{{tl|archosaur-stub}}

*{{tl|pterosaur-stub}}

*{{tl|ichthyosaur-stub}}

*{{tl|paleo-fish-stub}}

*{{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}}

Note that lower order stubs (such as {{tl|sauropod-stub}} may also be useful, since simply dividing dinosaurs into ornithischia and saurischia is still going to leave two fairly large categories.

Note also that I ''haven't'' done a tally, so these are on the proviso that they're each a reasonable level. I doubt these will all be viable, but several of them will be, and at the very least templates for the others may be worthwhile, even if upmerged into larger categories. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:Possibly {{tl|theropod-stub}}, especially for those which are now classified with both {{tl|dinosaur-stub}} and {{tl|paleo-bird-stub}} (the latter could usually be retained). There are [[Fossil_birds#Aves_incertae_sedis|several taxa]] for which this would apply. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Going by the perm-cats, here's what seems to be viable (or ballpark-close):

*{{cl|Saurischian stubs}} 344

*{{cl|Theropod stubs}} 187

*{{cl|Ornithischian stubs}} 180

*{{cl|Sauropod stubs}} 131

*{{cl|Coelurosaur stubs}} 93

*{{cl|Ornithopod stubs}} 76

*{{cl|Iguanodont stubs}} 52

*{{cl|Prehistoric mammal stubs}} 234

*{{cl|Prehistoric placental mammal stubs}} 122

*{{cl|Prehistoric reptile stubs}} 81

Usual caveats about the whackiness of the category tree apply. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think stubs such as {{tl|archosaur-stub}}, {{tl|pterosaur-stub}}, {{tl|ichthyosaur-stub}}, {{|paleo-fish-stub}}, and {{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}} might very well be useful. I'd use them, anyway. There's long been a need for them, as I've been sorting since February.

However, I don't like the idea of {{tl|ornithschia-stub}} or {{tl|saurischia-stub}}, for multiple reasons. One, "Ornithischia" is the correct spelling, not "Ornithschia". Not a big deal, until you think about the number of times that template will be misspelled. Let's keep it simple, if possible. People know how to spell "Dinosaur"; and the word "Dinosaur" has name recognition that S&O simply don't have, while still being a scientifically valid name. Secondly, there are many dinosaurs which don't "shoehorn" easily into Saurischia or Ornithischia: the Herrerasaurs, for example, which may predate the S/O split. In my work on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs]], I've come across dozens of reptiles which are "probably dinosaurs" but which cannot be classified further, based on the material. Less-well known reptiles ("possibly dinosaurs", "definitely not dinosaurs", "indeterminate vertebrates formerly considered dinosaurs") have been sent to various other categories. I'd rather keep the dinosaurs seperate from the other stuff, if possible. And it's easier to monitor the 1,200 dinosaur articles if they're not in a hodge-podge of different stub categories. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 10:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:My fault about the spelling of ornithischia (you're right, of course - I was going from moderately distant memory). We can leave that in one section for now if it's preferred, but it is getting pretty big at about 580 stubs. If splitting at the next level down is more useful, then perhaps putting the theropods into one subcategory would be useful. remember that I'm not talking about removing the current stub types - simply adding a subcategory or two. As far as the ''non-''dinosaur stubs, another possible subtype which might be useful which i thought of after my intial proposal if there are enough of them is {{tl|Therapsid-stub}}. If Alai's counts are anything to go by, it may not reach the standard threshold, though. I'd say that - barring any objections - it looks like paleo-mammal-stub is definitely a good place to start if there are around 350 of them (including the placental ones). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I only pointed out the misspelling because I worry about misspellings in the future. If perfectly intelligent users such as yourself have difficulty spelling it, imagine how hard it will be for all of those dino-fancruft people who are constantly adding misspelled content to Wikipedia (and there are dozens every day! :( ). I've got all the dinosaur pages on my watchlist, and you would be surprised at the poor quality of many of the additions. "Dino-bird" isn't even all that bad when considered with other contributions.

::Some questions: Would these templates be used ''in addition to'' or ''replacing'' the existing dinosaur-stub tag? I really don't like the idea of adding a second stub tag. Some of these articles are so short that (1)adding a second tag would mean most of the content would be at the bottom of the page, and (2)since I use pop-ups to determine the size of the shortest articles and list them on the short dinosaur article page, I would need to account for the size (in bytes) of the tags themselves, which is a bit of a pain.

::If they ''replaced'' the existing tag, which category would they then appear in? This is something that worries me, too. The WikiProject Dinosaurs team has just spent the last 10 months categorizing every dinosaur article on Wikipedia. We have articles for every last one on the [[List of dinosaurs]] (four new ones were added today, so I haven't had time to make articles for them yet). Each dinosaur appears in at least three categories: Era, Family, and Continent (except for a few dinosaurs which are invalid; they appear in an Invalid dinosaurs category). The problem with the above proposal is that it doesn't take into account all of the Family-level categories: there's no mention of an Ankylosaur-stub category, no mention of a Stegosaur-stub category, or Hadrosaur-stub category, or Thyreophoran-stub category, or Therizinosaur-stub category, etc, even though these exist as populated categories. One major problem I forsee is that these articles will end up being listed in multiple categories, with short stub articles being listed in more categories than similar articles that aren't stubs, and with no regard for the current classification scheme. We've just spent ten months cleaning up these articles, categorizing them and sorting them, and this sounds like a bit of a huge mess. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::(ec)The general practice is indeed to replace the existing stub tag (other than where there's overlap, rather tha strict inclusion, which doesn't appear to be the case here, give or take the taxonomic uncertainty). So they'd appear in a sub-category of the dinosaur ''stub'' category: all other categorisation would obviously not be changed. I didn't mention the family-level possibilities as they don't appear to be large enough: I did nearly mention the Thyreophorans, at 41, which would have been next on the list, but since categorisation seems to be quite good, and a split isn't at all urgent, it seemed unlikely to be a going concern. However, it's certainly an option to create per-family templates, feeding into broader stub categories. Might be a good idea, as the families are more familiar -- not to say, easier to spell. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:The new stubs would replace dinosaur-stub (or paleo-stub) on many current articles, but both stub templates and categories would still exist as base types. The articles would be categorised into new subcategories of {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}} and/or {{cl|Paleontology stubs}} as an extension of the stub tree, in exactly the same way that {{cl|rodent stubs}} is a subcategory of {{cl|mammal stubs}} which is itself a subcategory of {{cl|animal stubs}}, while {{tl|mammal-stub}} and {{tl|animal-stub}} are still regularly in use. Thus the main {{cl|Paleontology stubs}} would appear emptier in terms of articles, but would have more subcategories (and the same with {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}}). The above propsal doesn't mention ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs or stegosaurs simply because none of these are likely to reach a viable level of 60 stubs - those articles could simply remain marked with dinosaur-stub until such time as there are enough articles to warrant separate categories, or alternatively they could be marked with upmerged templates (that is, stegosaur-stub etc could be made but feed into the main {{cl|Dinosaur stubs}}).This is why my initial suggestion was just for a basic split into the two main categories of dinosaur, with the added comment that subdividing might be useful. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about splitting paleontologist-stub (which presently, like paleo-stub, captures non-dinosaur entries as well)? [[User:Jackrepenning|Jackrepenning]] 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:{{cl|Paleontologist stubs}} only has 83 stubs - not big enough to really consider splitting. And in any case, a significant proportion of paleontologists would be involved in the study of both dinosaurs and other fauna of the same era, so splitting it could be a problem. If we were to split it, splitting by nationality would probably be a more sensible way to go, as per other bio-stub types. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::I concur. There's only three permanent subcats by paleo-speciality, dinos not being one of them. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been more contentious than I initially thought... still, there seems to be enough support at least for the following:

*{{tl|archosaur-stub}}

*{{tl|pterosaur-stub}}

*{{tl|ichthyosaur-stub}}

*{{tl|paleo-fish-stub}}

*{{tl|paleo-mammal-stub}}

Revisiting the dinosaur category at a later date seems like a reasonable option - at least this has opened us up to some possibilities such as splitting out theropods. Unless there are any objections, the five above at least seem like they can be proceeded with. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Jewish Schools stub===

{{sfp top|create yeshiva-stub, upmerging cat}}

I counted about 45 Jewish school stubs. That might seem like a small number, but trust me; it's needed. Many Jewish schools operate under Hebrew or Yiddish names that are hard to spell, look up, or even recognize as schools; most Jewish articles are under Hebrew or Yiddish titles, so it's hard to differentiate between subjects. [[User:Catchthedream|Catchthedream]] 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

*Why does this argue for a stub type, as opposed to an ordinary category, if the issue is simply one of finding the articles? Schools are being sorted by ___location, I'm not at all sure we want to start double-tagging them by "ethos". [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

**I see your point, but I have to qualify. For the user genuinely interested in Jewish schools -- which are, by the way, already listed under the Judiasm stubs -- finding such schools proves tedious. Plus, the schools are arguably already listed by "ethos"; most of them are not listed under the other tags for school stubs. --[[User:Catchthedream|Catchthedream]] 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

***I'm not commenting on the use of the Judaism stub tag, which seems fine, but whether we should split up the school-stubs on that basis. It would certainly have to be in ''addition'' to a geographical tagging, since surely most "interested editors" are going to be so primarily on the basis of ___location (though granted not all), and combined with the fact that there's strictly speaking too few... But just to make sure we're on the same page here: are we talking about "day schools", or yeshivas? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

****Hmm. Again, I see your point. I was talking about both. --[[User:Catchthedream|Catchthedream]] 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

*****I'd think that day schools are most appropriately tagged as <region>-school-stubs. For the religious schools, I can easily believe they wouldn't be tagged as school-stubs at present (and I'm not quite sure if it's even entirely appropriate they should be), so I could see a case for them, but if there's even fewer of those... What about a {{tl|yeshiva-stub}} template, upmerged to {{cl|Judaism stubs}} until the size issue is less of a gotcha? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Gaelic sports stubs===

{{sfp top|creating hurling-stub & upmerge cat, rename gaelic-sport to gaelic-games}}

We have over 200 stubs in this category and a quick count would suggest half are bio stubs so I would like to propose {{cl|Gaelic sports biography stubs}} and {{tl|Gaelic-sports-bio-stub}}. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's no permanent parent, though (at least that leaps out of me). One might be created, but what about a hurling/football split? (With all apologies to the hardball handball players.) I also note that the current stub cat is {{cl|Gaelic Athletic Association stubs}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Am going to mention this over at [[WP:GAA]]. As for a new stub i agree their is a need for football/hurling split and possibly a stub for GAA clubs as their as currently over 35 over these ([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

:::35 is a ''bit'' low for a stand-alone category, though it's never too early to start populating upmerged templates, sez I. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::::perhaps further division is needed into counties/provinces??--[[User:Macca7174|Macca7174]] 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Is this the correct place to suggest that {{tl|gaelic-sport-stub}} be renamed as {{tl|gaelic-games-stub}} (19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

:::::::Technically you'd want [[WP:SFD]] for that, but if you don't require mass-moves of the usages or deletion of the old template as a redirect (and I don't think there's any need), I suggest you just go ahead and do it -- either move and leave the redirect, or create a redirect at the above redlink. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Logic===

{{sfp other}}

Logic-related stubs are either categorized with <nowiki>{{philo-stub}}, {{math-stub}}, or {{mathlogic-stub}}</nowiki>. It is often the case that something categorized as one could have just as easily been categorized as another (e.g., most foundational topics in logic are applicable to both philosophical and mathematical logic).

Some examples:

[[Atomic formula]]

[[Illicit minor]]

[[Illicit major]]

[[Inverse (logic)]]

[[Logical constant]]

[[Modal operator]]

[[Ternary logic]]

[[Semantics of logic]]

[[The Laws of Thought]]

[[T-schema]]

<b><font color="006400">[[User:Simoes|Simões]]</font></b> (<font size="1">^{[[User talk:Simoes|talk]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Simoes|contribs]]}</font>) 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's obviously some overlap, but there's also a difference in terminology, and as many of these articles are ''about'' the terminology... What are you suggesting we do with the existing mathematical logic stubs: merge them en masse? Restub the ones that seem most overlappy? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===1960s albums===