Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m archiving |
m archiving |
||
Line 12:
**{{tl|sfp top}} for customized result description (use <nowiki>{{sfp top|result}}</nowiki>).
*Discussion footer: {{tl|sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|Italian athletics biography stubs}}===
{{sfp create}}
Four page parent, 65 double-stubbed. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
* Support, I have been keeping an eye on the athletics and knew this wasn't far off but didn't realise it was over 60. Most should already be stubbed with the relevent template so only the category needs to be created. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===South Africa split===
{{sfp create}}
The South Africa stub stands at 467. I propose a fairly large split: {{tl|SouthAfrica-university-stub}}, SouthAfrica-union-stub (for trade unions), and {{tl|SouthAfrica-sport-stub}}. I don't have specific numbers yet, but I am fairly sure all of them will reach the standard level.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:SouthAfrica-union-stub should be {{tl|SouthAfrica-trade-union-stub}}.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:Then it shall be. I wasn't exactly sure.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Horseracing-stubs===
{{sfp create}}
This topic has reached over 600 stubs and without doing a full count it appears that
*{{Tl|Horseracing-race-stub}} and {{cl|Horseracing races stubs}}
*{{Tl|Horseracing-horse-stub}} and {{cl|Horseracing horses stubs}}
*{{Tl|Horseracing-bio-stub}} and {{cl|Horseracing biography stubs}}
all seem viable[[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
**Sounds reasonable. Another possible axis to split on would be gallops vs steeples vs trotting and pacing, but I think I prefer your suggestion. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (who'll be watching [[Melbourne Cup|the big race]] tomorrow afternoon)
*For naming consistency, those should be {{cl|Horse race stubs}}, {{cl|Racehorse stubs}} and {{horse racing biography stubs}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Double-upmerged template watch: geography===
{{sfp create}}
*{{tl|Seychelles-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Seychelles geography stubs}} 57
*{{tl|Comoros-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Comoros geography stubs}} 55
*{{tl|Jordan-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Jordan geography stubs}} 51
*{{tl|NewCaledonia-geo-stub}} / {{cl|New Caledonia geography stubs}} 51
*{{tl|Niger-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Niger geography stubs}} 50
*{{tl|Laos-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Laos geography stubs}} 49
*{{tl|SierraLeone-geo-stub}} / {{cl|Sierra Leone geography stubs}} 46
I'd think the first two are worth a category at this stage, and the others, keeping a close eye on. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
: Shouldn't it be {{cl|New Caledonia geography stubs}}... AFAIK We don't suppress spaces in category names... [[User:Monni1995|Monni]] 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Oops, pesky c'n'p. Thanks, fixed. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::: '''Support''' revised ;) [[User:Monni1995|Monni]] 20:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder that I am indeed [[User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying|keeping a close eye on]] these. My last count-up was only a week ago, and we've been using 65 as the usual split for national geo-stubs. Having said that, i've no objection to the creation of the first couple. BTW, your tally and mine don't quite agree - I have slightly higher numbers for some of those countries, and two more (Marshalls-geo-stub and CongoR-geo-stub) are also above 45. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:The above are only for countries with double-upmerged templates, and are only counting articles in both stub categories, as of the 31st. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::That explains it - my count was on the 7th, and I don't think we have either a Marshalls-stub or a CongoR-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{tl|dragonfly-stub}}===
{{sfp create}}
A division of {{tl|insect-stub}}, for dragonflies and damselflies and related articles. Redirect from {{tl|damselfly-stub}} for convenience.
60 stubs, at least:<br>
1-10: [[Anax (dragonfly)]], [[Amethyst Dancer]], [[California Dancer]], [[Emperor (dragonfly)]], [[Emerald Damselfly]], [[Common Bluetail]], [[Common Blue Damselfly]], [[Common Darter]], [[Hine's Emerald Dragonfly]], [[Four-spotted Chaser]].<br>
11-20: [[Flame Skimmer]], [[Giant Hawaiian Darner]], [[Hairy Dragonfly]], [[Hine's Emerald Dragonfly]], [[Orange-spotted Emerald]], [[Mexican Amberwing]], [[Migrant Hawker]], [[Norfolk Damselfly]], [[Orthetrum v. villosovittatum]], [[Variable Damselfly]].<br>
21-30: [[Vagrant Darter]], [[Variable Dancer]], [[Variable Darner]], [[Variegated Meadowhawk]], [[Western Meadowhawk]], [[Red-eyed Damselfly]], [[Red-veined Darter]], [[Southern Emerald Damselfly]], [[Small Red-eyed Damselfly]], [[Scarlet Skimmer]].<br>
31-40: [[Scarlet Dragonfly]], [[Scarlet Dwarf]], [[Lavender Dancer]], [[Familiar Bluet]], [[Green Darner]], [[Keeled Skimmer]], [[Dainty Damselfly]], [[Azure Damselfly]], [[Banded Demoiselle]], [[Beautiful Demoiselle]].<br>
41-50: [[Common Hawker]], [[Banded Darter]], [[Broad-bodied Chaser]], [[Brown Hawker]] [[Lesser Emperor]], [[Blue-tailed Damselfly]], [[Large Red Damselfly]], [[Pantala flavescens]], [[Zyxomma]], [[Sympetrum]].<br>
51-60: [[Diplacodes]], [[Celithemis]], [[Celithemis eponina]], [[Neopetalia punctata]], [[Macromiidae]], [[Gomphidae]], [[Corduliidae]], [[Blue-eyed Darner]], [[Calopterygidae]], [[Coenagrionidae]].<br>
There are more, either not marked as {{tl|insect-stub}} or not marked as a stub at all. Plus there will be many more as each species is filled in. [[User:A2Kafir|A2Kafir]] 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*Sounds reasonable in terms of size - I'll take your word for it in terms of the taxonomy, though if someone can confirm that it's a logical way to split these things I'd be happier. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
**Dragonflies and damselflies make up the whole order of insects called [[Odonata]]; that's why they fit together like this. So {{tl|dragonfly-stub}} would be a subcategory of both the category of insect stubs and the category for Odonata. [[User:A2Kafir|A2Kafir]] 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
*Support, contingent on the stub category name following the permanent category name ({{cl|Odonata stubs}}. (Usual escape clause from the singular noun naming guideline.)) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Joinery Stubs===
{{sfp top|rename as woodworking-stub}}
====added to WPSS====
I just added the WikiProject: Stub sorting. template to the [[:Category:Joinery stubs]] page, as it is a current stub category, but is not aparently in the project. -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:Not all categories have the template because that is a relatively new template; there were already several hundred categories in use when it was created, and not all of them have had it added yet. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::just for the sake of clarity, we ''should'' be adding the W:SS template to stub category pages that do not currently have it correct? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but you didn't come straight out and say it. -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:mainly yes. We should be adding it to ones that have been cleared through either the proposal or discovery page. Ones that haven't been shouldn't have it on until we've decided what top do with them. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::I see. Thank you! -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
So what do you guys want to do about it? Leave it alone? create a woodworking stub? rename the joinery stub category to [[:Category:Woodworking stubs]]?? [[User:Luigizanasi|Luigizanasi]] 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
====name?====
The template actually says "This article about joinery, carpentry or woodworking is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Perhaps the stub should simply be woodworking stub, since that would indicate a wider field of inclusion in my mind. -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:Just for your information, we started using it as the only available stub related to woodworking when we started the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Woodworking|Woodworking Wikiproject]] rather than create a proliferation of stubs for each topic. I added the words carpentry and woodworking to the stub description. There is also a [[:Template:Carpentry-stub]] which [[User:Grutness]] redirected to the joinery one. Previous discussion on the redirect in the stub sorting page is here [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive9#.7B.7Bjoinery-stub.7D.7D.3F]]. Note that [[joinery]] in the sense used by the stub is referred to a finish carpentry and millwork in North America where joinery usually refers to [[woodworking joints]]. In my opinion, it would be OK If someone wants to create a woodworking stub and ensure that the others redirect there, but I am not particularly hung up on it since I have been using the joinery one for quite a while. [[User:Luigizanasi|Luigizanasi]] 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm fine with the way it is, now that I know some of the history. The thing is, as a new stub-sort'er it did take me a while to find the proper stub to use. That being the case, could we expect someone who doesn't usually put articles into a stub category to know that the proper one to use is "joinery-stub"? That's the root of my concern.
::just to add some references to the discussion here, the definitions for joinery [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joinery&x=0&y=0], woodworking [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=woodworking&x=0&y=0], and carpentry [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=carpentry&x=0&y=0]. From looking over the above definitions, it seems logical to me for everything to be under the umbrella of woodworking (and therefore woodworking-stub would be the stub). In addition to their being past history on this subject, I'm still to new at this to feel comfortable in continuing this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. I do feel that the information provided above should be usefull in coming to a consensus, however. -[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 18:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is all a while ago, so my memory might not be 100% accurate, but ISTR that carpentry and joinery have somewhat different meanings in different countries (here, for instance, joinery implies furniture and fittings, carpentry implies buildings) - as such it made sense to have both stub types point at the same category. Since there is a redirect, there's nothing to stop anyone using carpentry-stub in place of joinery-stub as a tag for articles - the result will be the same. This has worked fine so far, though if there's a call to reoppen the idea of splitting them, that's fine by me, as long as it's clear what should be marked with which stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I would be opposed to splitting, it's useful to have all woodworking related stubs in one place. Whether the category is called [[:Category:Joinery stubs]] is immaterial to me, although I admit it would be neater if the category was [[:Category:Woodworking stubs]]. But having several stub templates such as joinery-stub, carpentry-stub, and perhaps woodworking-stub is OK and maybe even better, as long as they all point to the same category. [[User:Luigizanasi|Luigizanasi]] 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Linguistically, I'm in the joiner(y) camp, but yes, this should really follow the name of the permcat (with template redirects as you suggest). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 12:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Gold Coast Stubs===
{{sfp create}}
To be covered by WP Gold Coast.
About 30 stubs will fit this type.
[[User:Nathannoblet|Nathannoblet]] 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Looks reasonable if there are 30 or more. The only problem I can see is that "Gold Coast" is a disambiguation page (in fact, my first thought was the place now known as Ghana) - and I only live just across the ditch from Queensland!). Might I suggest that it be called {{tl|GoldCoastQLD-stub}} or similar to get around that? Also, the usual caveats about double-stubbing apply (that is, geo-stubs about Gold Coast get marked with both this new stub and Queensland-geo-stub, struct-stubs with the new stub and Australia-struct-stub, etc etc etc, so that they are also stubbed by type as well as ___location). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::I had the same feeling, Grutness (well, I could be biased. Half of Europe had colonies in Ghana, including [[Danish Gold Coast|you-guessed-it]]) :) What do we do with the category name? We'd better be able to distinguish between the two. {{cl|Gold Coast, Queensland stubs}} ? [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 11:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The article and permcat are both called [[Gold Coast, Queensland]], so that would make perfect sense. And yes, I know about Christiansborg Castle, Accra ;) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 12:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::(Jaw hitting floor). [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 14:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>:)</nowiki> My dad used to work in Ghana. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Uttar Pradesh ___location subtypes===
{{sfp create}}
*{{cl|Agra division geography stubs}}
*{{cl|Bareilly division geography stubs}}
Five page parent, these look to be over threshold. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*And also {{cl|Lucknow division geography stubs}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
: '''Support''', there is a need of further stubs based on the [[Divisions of Uttar Pradesh]], as not only the Agra, Bareilly and Lucknow geo stubs are very large. There are in all 17 divisions!! [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] <font color="green">[[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|(talk)]]</font> 10:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Those were the only ones I found that look like being over 60, though of course I'm open to correction on that. If anyone is feeling zealous, I'd suggest creation of all 70 per-district templates, upmerged either to district categories, or to the UP parent. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::: OK! I will do that but after I am finished sorting the {{tl|India-bio-stub}}. [[User:SlaveToTheWage|STTW]] <font color="green">[[User_talk:SlaveToTheWage|(talk)]]</font> 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::There's no hurry on that, the first couple should take care of the immediate oversizedness. And more power to you if you reduce that of the bios... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Tamil Nadu ___location subtypes===
{{sfp create}}
*{{cl|Kanniyakumari district geography stubs}} 58
*{{cl|Erode district geography stubs}} 64
*{{cl|Coimbatore district geography stubs}} 76
Five-page parent. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Support both this and the UP ones, if they will help to erode the size of the parent cats (ba-doom-ching!) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|Tajikistani people stubs}}===
{{sfp create}}
Needed for {{tl|Tajikistan-bio-stub}}. [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:No it isn't. That category has been deliberately upmerged into a larger category, since there are not enough Tajikistani biography stubs for a separate category. Currently there are only 27 stubs marked with this template - note the requirements listed above for separate categories. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::Including them in [[:Category:Asian people]] (without being in any subcategory) is simply useless (because [[:Category:Asian people]] is too large). Also, the term [[Asian people]] is misleading in this case, because it's mostly used for [[East Asians]]. [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::That's only because there are more east Asians with stubs - if it is true, which it doesn't seem to be by looking at that category. In any case, it also directs to {{cl|Tajikistan stubs}}, which is a logical place to look for them. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::In fact, there are only some 150 articles in that category (which is {{cl|Asian people stubs}}, not {{cl|Asian people}}), so finding Tajikistani ones should be no problem at all. Many of the others there seem to be from Armenia and Georgia, which isn't really East Asia by anyone's definition of the term. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::About the small number of the articles, what is the threshold? Where is the policy page? [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 07:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::As I mentioned, have a look at the top of the page. To quote from there: ''60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject''. For more explicit details, see [[WP:STUB]], which says''Ideally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.)'' Given that there is no WikiProject for Tajikistan, there are fewer than half the number that are required. Directing a template such as this one to a more general category, as has been done here, is standard practice when there are below this threshold number of stubs. If you can find another 30-35 stubs which can be marked with this template, then there will be no problem creating such a category - but until there are that many, directing it to the larger categories is a more sensible thing to do. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::BTW, I've just rolled back your change to the template - please don't mess around with it. Removing a perfectly acceptable category from it - one that is the result of a discussion only a couple of weeks ago - could easily be considered vandalism. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::A perfect acceptable category?! I have already mentioned why it's not appropriate in this case.
:::::A result of the discussion in a couple of weeks ago?! In that discussion 4 users participated and among them only you have mentioned using this category. [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 09:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Outsider's 2c: Jahangard, I suggest you give it a rest. While Grutness' response may have been a bit harsher than strictly necessary, I can't see anything wrong with the solution he's been advocating. Just look at how these articles show up both in [[:Category:Asian people stubs ]] and in [[:Category:Tajikistan stubs]], that seems to make perfect sense to me and is in accordance with common stub sorting practice. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::You explained why having it link to {{cl|Asian people}} was inappropriate. I agree - but it never linked there. It links, perfectly acceptably and approriately, to {{cl|Asian people stubs}}, which only contains 131 stubs, many of them for people from around central Asia (not, as you claim, for people in East Asia). Unless you'd like to argue that Tajikistan is not in Asia, i don't see how you can suggest that this is not an appropriate category. As for the discussion, the number of people involved was small, yes, but that is hardly relevant to the fact that a decision was reached and carried out through propoer process, that decision being to upmerge the template. Since the template is a bio-stub template, the only logical place it could be upmerged is to the next higher bio-stub category on the hierarchy, that is, {{cl|Asian people stubs}}. This is standard stub practice when a category is upmerged - Since there are too few articles currently to have a {{cl|Tajikistani people stubs}}, the template redirects to {{cl|Tajikistan stubs}} and to the next higher {{cl|X people stubs}} - in this case, Asia. Now, are you going to address my earlier suggestion and find a couple of dozen more stubs so that you can have the category you want, or are you far happier yelling at me? I know which I'd prefer, which is why I've been trying to find a few more Tajikistan-bio-stubs myself. If you would like to do something useful and help in that task, it would be much appreciated. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''UPDATE''' - After a bit of frantic stub-creation by [[User:Francis Tyers]] and myself, there are now enough stubs for a separate category. As such, I now support the creation of a separate category. Hopefully, that will keep everyone happy. Some advice for next time, Jahangard - if you are told that a few more stubs are needed for a new category, ''find a few more stubs for the category''. It's a lot more sensible - and much less of a waste of time and energy - than kicking up a fuss about whether a category is appropriate or not or whether an upmerge should have been made to a parent category when no category was specified. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per Grutness. - [[User:f-m-t|Francis Tyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this solution, of course. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. We now have 60+ articles so a category it is. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|Virginia university stubs}}===
| |||