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

Revision as of 23:43, 3 December 2006

Revision as of 17:36, 8 December 2006

Line 12:

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

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

==={{tl|liberty-ship-stub}}===

{{sfp other}}

I created {{tl|liberty-ship-stub}} and tagged 34 articles (see [[:Category:Liberty ship stubs]]). Sorry I'm posting this after the fact; I'll follow the procedure next time. [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

*If that's the total number of existing candidates, it's rather small. A possibility would be to rescope to naval auxiliaries in general. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:I agree - it's very small. Alai's suggestion of an increased scope might be a sensible move. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::Only 34 articles? Interesting given that the U.S. produced more than 1,000 of these ships. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|Denmark-hist-stub}} / {{cl|Danish history stubs}} / {{tl|Denmark-battle-stub}}===

{{sfp create}}

This one has been on my mental to do list for ages:

I suggest a -hist stub for Denmark on par with the similar material for many other countries. I have found a little more than 60 in an unsystematic search, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valentinian/Sandbox#Material_for_a_.7B.7BDenmark-hist-stub.7D.7D]. Since 29 of them are about battles, I suggest an upmerged {{tl|Denmark-battle-stub}} as well.

There might be a bit more material for the first category. I've been reluctant with tagging material outside of the modern borders with {{tl|Denmark-stub}}. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, there is a lot more material for this one. I just noticed the articles about elections to parliament. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::Created and populated. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|Luxembourg-sport-stub}} / {{cl|Luxembourgian sport stubs}}===

{{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|<font color="maroon"><b>~ Amalas</b></font>]] [[User talk:Amalas|<font color="navy">rawr]] [[Special:Contributions/Amalas|^{=^_^=}</font>]] 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|UK-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|United Kingdom football club stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

This is partly from [[WP:WSS/D]], in the discussion about a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries#.7B.7BNI-footyclub-stub.7D.7D.2FCategory:Northern_Irish_football_club_stubs|North Ireland footyclub stub]]. The hierarchy would look like this:

*{{tl|UK-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|United Kingdom football club stubs}}

**{{tl|Wales-footyclub-stub}} and {{tl|NI-footyclub-stub}} would be upmerged templates (both their cats currently exist and are up at [[WP:SFD]])

**{{tl|Scotland-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|Scottish football club stubs}}

**{{tl|England-footyclub-stub}} / {{cl|English football club stubs}}

[[User:Amalas|<font color="maroon"><b>~ Amalas</b></font>]] [[User talk:Amalas|<font color="navy">rawr]] [[Special:Contributions/Amalas|^{=^_^=}</font>]] 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Oil and Gas Industry Stubs===

{{sfp nocreate}}

There doesn't seem to be an oil and gas industry stub, and I think one is warrented. A lot of oil and gas stubs are classified as general, ambiguous stubs that aren't always all that fitting and almost never consistent, like "industry", "machinery", "energy" etc. What do you guys think? [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*We already have {{cl|energy stubs}}, {{cl|energy company stubs}}, and {{cl|petroleum company stubs}}; do we really need this too? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Because the articles I'm talking about aren't about companies, and they're about energy but that's hardly descriptive as energy includes all sorts of stuff. I would say a "Oil and Gas Industry" stub would be a lot more useful than either of these two when it comes to classifying a lot of articles. As for energy company stubs, this seems to almost totally overlap the petroleum company stub. And as a sidenote, why is it petroleum company rather than oil and gas company? [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::Let me rephrase that: what articles would be within the scope of your proposed stub type, that would not be {{cl|energy company stubs}} or {{cl|petroleum company stubs}}, and that would justify further splitting up the {{cl|energy stubs}}; and more specifically, how many? And to answer your question, looks like the stub cat was "reparented" from {{cl|petroleum}} to {{cl|oil companies}}, but there was no rename as such. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::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|<font color="maroon"><b>~ Amalas</b></font>]] [[User talk:Amalas|<font color="navy">rawr]] [[Special:Contributions/Amalas|^{=^_^=}</font>]] 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::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)

::::::Redlinks don't sort too well, and if no-one is interested in populating a stub category, it's counterproductive to create it, tag a handful of articles with it, and leave them to languish in a little-visited backwater. Stub types on the "official" list will have at least 60 articles (or have significant contents in subcats, or are the particular ___domain of a wikiproject, or some combination thereof): if we haven't managed to delete all the "bootleg" ones that no-one ever even proposed, give us time... I suggest creating an {{tl|oil-stub}} template, feeding into {{cl|energy stubs}} (and/or {{tl|gas-stub}}). I notice there's already a {{tl|petroleum-stub}}, on that basis. If it grows over time, or if splitting the energy-stubs becomes enough of a priority for someone to make a particular effort, splitting it out into a separate category will be straightforward (and uncontroversial). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Ok.. that sounds better than nothing.. How do I make such a template? And how do I make it feed into energy stubs? and what do the cl and tl mean? Thanks, sorry I don't know anything about stubs.. [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Here's an example: I've just edited {{tl|petroleum-stub}} to be a separate template, rather than a redirect, feeding into the energy stubs. (Arguably that's a better name than {{tl|oil-stub}} as it'll avoid any confusion with cooking oils, essential oils, etc, etc.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hmm I looked at the [[:Category:Energy_stubs|energy stub list]] and maybe making a seperate oil and gas stub is a bad idea. I'd say over 75% of the stubs in the energy list are about oil and gas.. I think changing them all to a seperate category would be a lot of work, even if "oil and gas" is a better descriptor. I think classifying all energy under one topic was a bad idea, it is too broad since it contains both electricity generation and oil and gas stuff as well as a bunch of other almost unrelated topics. But again, I don't know if it's worth the hassle fixing now.. [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::At the time of creation, there may not have been enough for a separate oil-stubs, etc, and {{cl|petroleum}} and {{cl|natural gas}} are separate permcats, so combining the two in the way you suggest is a little inobvious. Probably at some point they'll be split up, whether on that basis, or some other. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|coin-stub}}===

{{sfp create}}

Continuing the inconclusive discussion from below, {{tl|coin-stub}} is definitely a viable split of {{tl|money-stub}}. Right now, I think it should be for individual coins, types of coins, and anything coin-related; it may be subdivided in the future when serious coin geeks arrive and start adding articles about the minutiae of each date and mint. It would NOT be for denominations or money units. [[User:A2Kafir|A2Kafir]] 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*Support, and concur as to viability. Perhaps this might also be useful for the exonumwhatsits, since a number of are in the form of coinage, or coin-like objects... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:I can live with this proposal. I also thank you for continuing the dialogue. --[[User:JAYMEDINC|JAYMEDINC]] 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|Essay stubs}} / {{tl|essay-stub}}===

{{sfp create}}

82 total under {{cl|Essays}} and its sub-cats, possibly more lurking elsewhere (pamphlets, documents, etc.). Would winnow down {{tl|lit-stub}}s and cover items not suitable for {{tl|nonfiction-book-stub}}. [[User:Pegship|<b>H</b>er <b>P</b>egship]] 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|Turkey-politician-stub}} / {{cl|Turkish politician stubs}}===

{{sfp top|create template, upmerge to European politicians and Asian politicians}}

I am submitting this proposal for 2 reasons. The first is that the stub is viable (78 Turkish politicians are in the "Politician stubs" category and I am positive some are hiding) and also to avoid the continental problem that Turkey always faces: Should they be European politicians or Asian politicians? Or should they be included in both. I am not sure. But I submit it, anyway.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:If this separate category is made (which I '''support''', BTW) it can have both as parents very easily. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. It can be parented by both. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''<font color="black">[[User Talk:Nauticashades|Shad]]</font><font color="black">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font><font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/User:Nauticashades|s]]</font>''' 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

<s>* '''YES''' I've been waiting for this one! This will leave only Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the main category (for the same reason as Turkey). [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)</s>

<s>**And no problem with giving it two parents if that'll keep everybody happy. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)</s>

:I just rechecked this one and the number is far lower. The number for Turkey is probably somewhere near 30-40, and the entire material for both Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan is just above 60 combined. An upmerged template would be useful though. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|Finnish football biography stubs}}===