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

Revision as of 04:04, 15 December 2006

Revision as of 23:09, 18 December 2006

Line 12:

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

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

==={{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}}===

{{sfp other}}

I've just merged the Ancient-Rome-town-stubs in here, but of course, the fate of this type is itself... under question, at best. The creator didn't repropose this one, which I think is marginal, but potentially sensible, so I'll float it here to get some clarity one way or the other. (If kept, I suggest a rename to {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}}.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong oppose'''. All geo-stubs are sorted by present day country. Unless Ancient Rome has suddenly made a reappearance as a modern country, I don't see any point in this one at all, especially since every stub which could be marked with it is better double-stubbed with present ___location and a plain Ancient-Rome-stub. If we allow an Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, then it is an unhealthy precedent which is very likely to see the creation of similar stubs for ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Thrace, Kievian Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Ghana, Ancient Zimbabwe, Nubia, the Incan Empire, Mesopotamia... I for one do not want to suddenly discover CeltoLigurian-geo-stub or Seleucid-geo-stub and then have to re-sport all the stubs marked with them back into their present day countries where most editors would be more likely to expect to find them. Then you've got the added problem of significant multistubbing of places with long histories. Lincoln, for example, might get Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, Danelaw-geo-stub, Mercia-geo-stub and Lincolnshire-geo-stub, even assuming it wasn't around during pre-Roman Britain. It may seem trivial in some cases (would anyone logically think of Lincoln as Ancient-Roman? Probably not), but not in others (how about Colchester or York?). On the whole, I think the whole idea is a bad one. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

**So you think that [[Assyria (Roman province)]] and [[Carinae]] and [[Alsium]] are better off in modern-day-country categories? We may have the luxury for the time being of just chucking them back into {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}}, (where they came from, btw, rather than being defected country-geo-stubs) but won't we be telling each other what a great idea this is in several hundred stubs' time? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

***No, I'm certain we'll be fighting to be the first to take it to SFD. If you look at most of the stubs relating to Roman provinces, they are in current-day geo-stub categories, as should be the Assyria, Carinae, and Alsium ones. The fact that they aren't in current day geo-stub categories illustrates clearly that stubs which would normally be marked with a present-day-country geo-stub are not being marked as such because they are in this category. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

****That latter is rather convoluted logic: these were all until recently in the "Ancient Roman" parent, and none of the ones I looked at ever had a (different) -geo-stub, despite having existed for quite a while. (I hardly think you can blame ''this'' type for these not being sorted as you'd wish -- you must have a very different estimate of how many of the bazillions of stubs are in any sense "optimally sorted" than I do, I suppose.) And on the former, you didn't really address the point: once there's 1000 Ancient-Rome-stubs, and some large chunk of them are "places": would you really oppose a "much needed split" on that basis, and, well, why? Granted we're a long way short of that happening, but I hate having to undo work that there's every prospect of having to redo later. "Risk of failure to properly double-stub" is inherent to about, oh, at least 100,000 stub articles, I'd guess, and for articles that are only meaningful in a Roman historical context, like the above, if I had to ditch one, I'd certainly ditch the modern-day one, on the basis of primary notability, which I think is in distinct danger of being thrown out with the bathwater here. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

****all of this is a corollary point to what I have been saying. {{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}} is currently a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}} and {{cl|Geography stubs}}, but has no permanent category parent. If the need exists, there should be a {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}} category that is a child of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}}. In this case such a stubs category could also be a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome stubs}}, in order to support the perm cat structure of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}} being a child of {{cl|Ancient Rome}}. Again, another instance of us creating our own separate categorisation system that contradicts the guidelines establised at [[WP:CAT]] --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*****Everything seems to be a corollary to this point, that unfortunately you're not making in the least clear. This is an unproposed stub type -- how is its current structure in any way the responsibility, or characteristic of some systematic failing in, the stub guidelines or the stub sorting project? Given that the permanent parent ''does'' exist (but was just never added to the category page), I really, truly don't understand what you're getting at. A missing parent does not constitute a "separate system". And in what way are we contradicting [[WP:CAT]]? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

******I'm not sure how to be more clear. What is not clear? We should not be making tree structures out of stub categories. A stub category should be required to have a normal category as at least one of it's parents, if indeed more that one category is required. Why? read below. As for how we are contradicting [[WP:CAT]], that is how. I point you in the direction of [[WP:CAT]] for further explanation of how. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*******I'm not sure how to be more clear about what's not clear. If I understand your position on ''this'' particular category, it's exactly the same as mine. I don't see how it relates to your more general poiint, but that might be because I have no idea what your more general point ''is''. I have not the slightest ides what you mean by "We should not be making tree structures out of stub categories", and nor do I understand how ''that'' relates to your earlier interventions, either. Are you suggesting that stub categories should whenever possible have permanent parents? As I've said, that's already the case. (Don't blame "the locals" for what other people do in particular instances. It seems a little pointless to add it now in this instance, since it seems highly likely to be either renamed (i.e., deleted and recreated elsewhere), or deleted outright.) Are you suggesting that stub categories should ''always'' have permanent parents? That's not always possible, sometimes there's nothing suitable available (such as the drama-films-by-decade, for example). Are you suggesting that stub categories should not (also) have stub type parents? Clearly they should, per normal categorisation practice, and given that it follows that the stub categories will form a tree (well, a directed acyclic graph...). That does not make them "separate". On "that is how"? Sorry, but ''what'' is how? If you can't tell me that category "X" breaks clause "Y" of the categorisation policy, I fear I'm not going to be much helped by just linking to that page (not being able to find it wasn't the problem, believe me). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

********Let be be sure that I understand the current debate correctly. {{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}} is being nominated as a stubs category. It is already created by someone who aparently created it without first proposing it, so ultimately this current debate is whether or not to keep the category or rename it. This particular thread of the debate is saying '''Strong oppose''' due to the fact that geo-stubs are sorted according to the current day country that the article would be about.

::::::This sort of thinking is what I am arguing against, and the funny thing is that I beleave that you are as well Alai. Gruntness said earlier that "If we allow an Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, then it is an unhealthy precedent which is very likely to see the creation of similar stubs for ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Thrace, Kievian Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Ghana, Ancient Zimbabwe, Nubia, the Incan Empire, Mesopotamia...", which is what caused me to reply to this thread. In my view, the goal of what we are doing in this project should be putting stub articles closest to those who can ultimately make the article in question complete enough to no longer be considered stub class.

::::::There already exists a categorisation system that we should be placing articles into (in addition to placing stub tags on them) in order to facilitate the ultimate goal of making wikipedia more complete. Personally, I want to make a stub article visible to those who can ultimately help the article. I believe that the best result that we could hope for is to be able to say that a category of stubs needs to be deleted because all of the stub articles in it have been improved to the point that they are no longer stubs. We should not be sorting articles to places where the people that can help those articles will not see the articles at all! I do not see the utility in only creating stubs categories that can be filled with a certain amount of articles, as that can contradict the ultimate goal of marking an article as a stub. What I am saying boils down to this: if a stub class article is created that falls into a "permanent category", it should be placed into a stub category that matches it's "permanent category" ''regardless of the number of other articles in that category there may be''. I do not understand what the hang up is in saying that "there is only one article in this stubs category". If a stubs category has 0 articles, then we as wikipedians have won the fight in moving any articles of stub class to be full articles. However, if there is even one article that can be placed in a specific category, what is the harm in creating a matching "(insert category name) stubs" category to hold that article and therby call attention to it? Why are we in the buisness of recreating the work of the [[WP:CAT]] guideline, especially when we don't seem to be using the same criteria that they are? Not every single category should have a corresponding stubs category, as that is completely unnessesary and is patently silly. However, a stubs category should be allowed to be created for any category where it's obviously usefull. The categories themselves are created by people who know the subjects that are being put into that category, and I find this process's willingness to ignore that work and create our own structures to be counter productive. If the need exists, there should be a {{cl|Ancient Roman geography stubs}} category that is a child of {{cl|Ancient Roman geography}}. since there are currently 34 articles in {{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}}, I would think that the need for such a category would be obvious. To say that it's unnessesary because "all geo-stubs are supposed to be in their modern day name category" is rediculous, since those who can help move the articles in an Ancient Roman geography stubs category would be the same people that look for articles in the Ancient Roman geography category. A worse result is to create sub-categories out of existing stub categories, simply to make the original stub category smaller. If the sub categories that are being created are children of existing categories, then that's great because it puts the article closer to those who can help it. If however the sub category being created has no matching permanent category (or is simply not matched to a permanent category), then that ''bad'' as it places the article in a place where it may not be seen.

::::::There is no need for us to argue about what categories should exist, here. If anyone wishes to do that, there's a [[WP:CFD]] procedure that can be followed. If the category exists that an article should be in, then the article should be placed into that category. There then should be a corresponding stubs category that can easily be created ''as required'', without controversy or question.

::::::Ultimately, you can mark me down in the '''Strong support''' camp, with the caveat that the rename should occur. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::If I'm understand you correctly, we agree in this particular instance, but on the general principle of "create a stub category for everything there exists 60 stubs for", which is what you appear to be saying here (correct me if I'm wrong), I disagree strongly, for the reasons I've tried to articulate several times already (when you previously appeared to be suggesting something to that general effect). Just to be clear, that has ''nothing'' to do with the categorisation policy, which in no way implies doing such a thing, ''nothing'' to do with "separate stub trees" (which does not correctly describe what we do), and ''is'' contrary to the existing stub guidelines (where we expressly say to avoid cutting across existing stub categories, again for the reasons that we don't want hundreds of thousands of stub categories, and we don't want dozens of stub categories (much less actual tags) used per article). If I'm missing some details in your reply, please excuse me, in a rush, may not be able to get back to this before Monday. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::*Change: "create a stub category for everything there exists 60 stubs for" to say something like "create a stub category any time that there is a stub article in a category". The only real criticism that I can recall to this is there being a problem with articles ending up in a theoretical "1954 Births stubs" category, which I can't anyone ever finding the need to create. It is usually fairly obvious, based on content of the article itself and the articles that it is (or should be) placed with whether or not a category is actually something that people would naturally browse through. I don't know many experts on "1954 births", but if the person is a politician or an actor, there are certainly experts on those topics who will browse through those categories. The point that I am making is simply that there's really no need for us to be proposing stub categories and arguing about each, then proposing again and arguing again, etc... ad nausium. Put articles in categories. If the article is a stub, place it in an exactly matching stubs category. done, end of story. Once the stubs category is empty (if ever), it can be deleted. Why are the existance of stubs categories even an issue? Are we afraid of having too many? --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - I don't think it'll create this rash of other sorted-by-civilization ones that you're so paranoid about. This is a one-off, and articles would just be sorted into this one and their present-country one, and NO OTHERS.

[[User:Neddyseagoon|User&#124;Neddyseagoon]] 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

**I don't see how you can guarantee that this is a one-off, and that we won't suddenly get an Ancient-Greece-geo-stub for places stretching through Alexander's conquests, or an Inca-geo-stub for pre-Columbian South America. We've seen one stub type used as a precedent for others only too often here at WP:WSS in the past, and I'm not happy to open the door to yet more such. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

***You seem to keep the door ''shut'' pretty well to me. You still don't seem to have answered why you could not run such geo-stubs ''in parallel'' to the existing, 'current country' system, - giving any stub a modern country or modern country and ancient country, but ''never'' solely an ancient country as in your nightmare scenario - rather than the latter making the former an impossibility. Previous historical subdivisions inevitably cut across modern borders and include multiple modern countries, in some cases (empires) more than others. So if such a parallel system was set up (and you don't seem to be short of people to police it), historian wikipedia writers could home in on Roman empire cities, rather than having to trawl two-dozen modern country ones, and de-stub them with greater ease, speed and efficiency. Thus it makes sense from a historian's perspective even if not from a WPS police perspective that some (not me) might see as draconian or even blinkered.

***I'm sorry if that comes across strong, but there does seem to be little understanding of any perspectives on this issue other than the zealously-defended perspectives of the WPS set - perhaps a sub-group of historian/stub police is needed.[[User:Neddyseagoon|User&#124;Neddyseagoon]]

****I'm not sure how helpful it is to make sweeping generalisations about the WSS "set" 'zealously-defending' something, especially given that of the long-standing regulars, exactly two have chimed in, and between us we seem to have exactly two, diametrically opposed opinions. (I could have saved myself both effort, and seemingly grief from both 'sides' if I'd just gone ahead and deleted this -- it's been sitting on the to-be-deleted queue for a fortnight.) But bear in mind the "nightmare scenario" is exactly what's in place at present. Not because they were sorted and then de-sorted, as G. assumes, but because they were never sorted by ___location in the first place. And you may think there's a lot of WSS "manpower", but have you seen [[WP:WSS/P|the size of our backlog]]? I don't agree this is sufficient reason to extirpate such stub types, but I do sympathise with his point. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

****Yes, sorry, that was completely unfair, heat of the moment stuff. [[User:Neddyseagoon|User&#124;Neddyseagoon]] 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as Alai points out above, several of the articles are no longer being sorted into the present-day country-geo-stub categories where they should be, presumably at least in part because this category is being regarded as an alternative rather than as a complementary stub type. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, that's just because its true use as complementary hasn't become established yet.[[User:Neddyseagoon|User&#124;Neddyseagoon]] 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So many cities are Roman in Europe that this would hardly be an underpopulated stub-category, certainly. [[User:Neddyseagoon|User&#124;Neddyseagoon]] 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

**I'm not arguing that it would be underpopulated - that is the least of my concerns. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''' per Grutness. Otherwise we'll end up labelling an article about Paphlagonia with both "Ancient Rome", "Ancient Greece", "Hittites", "Byzantine Empire", "Ottoman Empire", "Seljuk Empire" and "Turkey". [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::I think that misses the point (and ignores primary notability as a criterion). Where there's an article about a Roman province, or a town that existed only during Roman times, or where there's a separate article for the Roman incarnation thereof, is it really most usefully sorted by modern political division? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Geography related stub template===

{{sfp other}}

I propose to create stub template similar to {{tl|socio-stub}}

as This geography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

There's no similar stub template for geography. I propose to use existing template ((geography-stub)) - no articles link here. This stub only redirects to ((geo-stub)):

{{tl|geo-stub}}

This stub is used for geographical locations and everything links here.

This stub would be used to track stubs related to geography (I mean geography as a scientific discipline). I want to avoid using ((geo-term-stub)), because some terms are not geographical terms per se but only related to geography.

My editing was reverted, so I write here. Thanks in advance. [[User:GeoW|GeoW]] 12:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

*I'd support this, on the provisos that there's complete clarity and explicit statement that the scope is geography as a discipline, and not for articles about locations and individual geographical features, so as to minimise the confusion with the "-geo-" hierarchy, and that there's some reasonable number of stubs that this would apply to (bearing in mind the existing subcat). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

*subcat''s'', Alai - I suspect that, as I mentioned to GeoW a couple of days ago, many of the stubs that could take this already take such things as geo-term-stub, map-stub, geographer-stub and topography-stub. Can you give us a few examples of some that don't, please? Making a parent from them that is different from the geo-stubs (which are for specific ___location articles) would make sense if there are enough of them that wouldn't qualify for one of those stub types. The problem with using geography-stub for that, though, is that it's still a very frequently used redirect - on my daily clean-out of the main geography stub category I'd say half of the new items put into it use that redirect (so that's about three or four new stubs using it daily). Perhaps {{tl|geography-sci-stub}} (or {{tl|geo-sci-stub}}) would be a more appropriate name? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

**Not a bad idea about the template name(s). Perhaps {{tl|geography-stub}} might be turned into a "please use something else" message, along the pattern of {{tl|football-stub}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

*Ok. Here are some examples from ((geo-term-stub) that could be changed: [[Association of American Geographers]], [[Behavioral geography]], [[Environment and Planning]], [[Environmental geography]], [[Geosophy]], [[Health geography]], [[Language geography]], [[Maritime geography]], [[Panbiogeography]], [[Philosophy of Geography]], [[Phytogeography]], [[Population geography]], [[Social geography]], [[Strategic geography]], [[Time geography]], [[Visual geography]]. These are also stubs: [[Regional geography]], [[Historical geography]], [[Marketing geography]], [[Military geography]], [[Geographic information science]]. I also wanted to use it for example for [[Americanization]], [[Westernization]] ... - to classify this as geographical term (using the geo-term-template) would not be appropriate. It's only related to [[Cultural geography]]. I agree with creation of ((geo-sci-stub)) instead of my first proposal.

A ''little'' thin on the ground, but it would have natural children, some of which are currently not-very-well placed as children of geo-term-stub - I suggest the following hierarchy:

:*Cat:Geography stubs

:**Cat:Continent/region-specific geography stubs

:***Cat:Country-specific geography stubs

:****Cat:Subnational region-specific geography stubs

:**Cat:Geography science stubs

:***Cat:Cartography stubs

:***Cat:Geographer stubs

:***Cat:Geography term stubs

:***Cat:Topography stubs

[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:I don't care much about hierarchy this time, but about the creation of stub that would state that: This ''geography related'' article is a stub. Geography is quite interdisciplinary study. Issues that are in scope of geographers are also in scope of other scientists (example is the process of americanization - it falls within the scope of language scientists as was written on the talk page recently, many could contribute to this issue from different views and expand the stub). In many cases it's also ridiculous when it states that this geographical term is stub. [[Association of American Geographers]] is a bright example of this. On the other hand academic geography on wikipedia does not have that many articles, that every geographical discipline could have its own stub. So, I think its good solution at present. [[User:GeoW|GeoW]] 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::The point with the hierarchy is that 30 stubs by itself isn't really sufficient for a stub type - but 30 and four child categories is more likely to get support. As to where it itself would fit into the tree, it would fit not only into {{cl|Geography stubs}} but also into a category for earth sciences (along with {{cl|Geology stubs}} et al.) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::So, why everything else what does not fit in the other categories is in the ((geo-term-stub)). Maybe it would be better to change the text of ((geo-term-stub)) to Geography related article instead of this geographical term is stub.[[User:GeoW|GeoW]] 15:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|London-road-stub}}===

{{sfp top|let Alai & Grutness work it out}}

Apropos of discussion at SFD, I did a quick tally of {{cl|London geography stubs}} and found that - of the 550 stubs in that category - around 95 were streets, roads, squares and circuses (circi?). This would reduce the load on this stub cat and also reduce the need to split it into boroughs or similar. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

* '''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|<font color="maroon"><b>~ Amalas</b></font>]] [[User talk:Amalas|<font color="navy">rawr]] [[Special:Contributions/Amalas|^{=^_^=}</font>]] 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

***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|<font color="maroon"><b>~ Amalas</b></font>]] [[User talk:Amalas|<font color="navy">rawr]] [[Special:Contributions/Amalas|^{=^_^=}</font>]] 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

*****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:

*#We don't make distinctions in stubbing between roads and streets anywhere else, so there's no point in doing it here, especially since the words "road" and "street" are pretty much interchangeable and actually have reversed meanings in some places (I live in a quiet suburban street that links to the centre of town by one of the city's main roads). Compare HongKong-road-stub and what it covers;

*#London-road-stub would replace UK-road stub (and be a subcat of it) on those roads entirely in london - In exactly the same way as elsewhere and also exactly the same way as related stubs like geo-stub, both stubs would be applied if a road is both within and outside London. There's no reason why [[A1200]] shouldn't be included, and my intention was certainly to cover such roads as well - if the North Circular was a stub, it could be marked with London-road-stub quite happily;

*#this is ''partly'' in reaction to the Richmond thing, but I've been thinking it was a good idea for a while. This simply goaded me into action. And with just shy of 100 stubs, it's certainly a sensible split;

*#Currently these roads are stubbed with London-geo-stub, which is incorrect in terms of how we use geo-stub elsewhere - as such, making a separate template and category for them will actually bring London-geo-stub in line with other geo-stubs;

*# we may be nowhere near having to split the UK-road-stubs, but London-geo-stub is getting sizable, at 550 stubs - and since 17% of its contents are items which theoretically should be marked with a diferent stub type, I say let's make that stub type!

*[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

**100 stubs argues to "viable", not necessarily "sensible". In fact, I really haven't seen any argument as to ''why'' splitting these by "form" is better than by more-specific-___location -- especially as you're the person to argue the most vigorously against <place>-<landform>-stubs. That we already have a road-stub hierarchy, and (notoriously) many road-focused editors is granted, but in this case such "demand" as there is seems to be going the other way. It's further a bit of a stretch to assert that (say) [[Churchfield Road]] "should" be marked as anything other than a London-stub, since the "transport" aspect seems to be minimal, and the "part of London" considerable (as far as a six-sentence article goes). At any rate, I think we should get some Londonocentric input on this before getting too far ahead of ourselves. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

***A road isn't a landform - which is why with every other geo-stub except London's, roads aren't included. I don't see why London lists them if the others don't. If you want to be technical about it, roads are a form of structure, and those ''are'' split by type as well as ___location (theat-struct, bridge-struct, church, stadium...). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

****Remind me at what point I gave the impression that I thought roads were landforms; if "form", which I was ''not'' using interchangeably with "landform", is too similar, read as "type". I'm not sure I do want to be 'technical' about it, but roads are not in any especially useful sense 'structures', and are never that I recall either perm-categorised that way, nor stub-supercatted as such. OTOH, they generally ''are'' in "-geo-stub" hierarchies (the stub cats being rather more broadly drawn than the various "Geography of Foobar" cats, i.e. including all aspects of human geography, as well as the assorted landforms. And as I've pointed out, some of these articles are not merely articles-about-human-geography-by-way-of-road-transport, they're "neighbourhood" articles (and thus even moreso about human geography) with very little to do with transport, and would probably be more logically be split up (when split up they have to be) in much the same way that other -geo-stub categories of entities of comparable scale, i.e. by sub-region. And yes, some of them are just 'road articles', pure and simple, what's less clear as to whether those approach the stated total, or indeed the usual creation threshold. However, I don't see any of the requested input from the London projecteers, so perhaps I'm attracting undue grief unto my personage to little ultimate purpose. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*****FWIW {{cl|Geography stubs}} has {{cl|Building and structure stubs}} as a subtype, but ''not'' {{cl|Road stubs}} - and as such much of your point above isn't actually valid as far as the way the hierarchy currently operates. For the most part, these stubs are not about neighbourhoods - they are indeed about the individual roads mentioned in the titles. Even if only 60% of them are, that's still 57 stubs, and I'd say that 60% is a very very conservative estimate. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

******Oh, that settles everything, then. In fact, the whole structure of the -geos and the -B&Ss is massively inconsistent from case to case, being sometimes a subcat, and sometimes not, and I'm inclined to believe that when they are a subcategory (the B&S root included), it's as much through "where to put a by-region type?" issue as any settled "buildings as geography" taxonomy. And, are you arguing that "roads" are a subset of "structures", which are a subset of "geography" (as above), ''or'' that roads aren't a subset of geography (as your original 'mis-sorted' claim)? (Well, actually, you've been arguing both, but I'm hoping you can be induced to pick just one of the above.) You may be correct about "for the most part", but equally you may not, and it's rather difficult to say without getting into a case-by-case wrangle about the whole list. (Bearing in mind you don't seem to have specifically addressed my point about the particular example already cited.) However, if there are 60 "primarily about roads as an aspect of transport" stubs, I have no actual objection to this. (In practice this may require either not looking at the contents, if this is created, or else taking numerous Natracalms.) There's 19 double-stubbed with both, which is a plausible start.

******Let me comment what I ''hope'' is one final time on the NY/London thing, since I've already said I am not going to continue to comment on what in my view has nothing at all to do with the NY proposal, under that heading -- and frankly that it ever got to the point of "opposition contingent on argumentative hypothetical" was pretty ridiculous. This also seems to be the only type where there's ever been any material question at issue. Road-stubs should clearly be split up by sub-region where viable and/or necessary to do so, and splitting up the U.S. by state should be beyond any argument, and much more logical than the "particular by-state system" scheme foisted on us by the road-warriors. Tagging articles as "roads" that are questionably, secondarily, or not-really-at-all {{tl|road-stubs}} is much less clear-cut, and ''that's'' what I was commenting on here. Is it clear that those are different things? Is it clear I'm not in fact saying what I've elsewhere been assumed and/or stated to be saying? If so, then enough said. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*****Sigh. Of course I'm not arguing that they are building and structure stubs. The reason I mentioned that they were technically more that than geo-stubs is that I was following your logic of how they should be assigned. if I followed the way you were thinking they should be more that geo-stubs, they should count as structures. But they aren't either - we aren't silly enough to regard building and structure stubs as a logical parent for road stubs, just as I hope we're not silly enough to regard geography stubs as a natural parent for it. As for being correct "for the most part" without going on a case by case basis, how the hell do you think I came up with that figure? I went on a cae by case basis, and I'd say that somewhere between 65 and 75% (hence my 60% being conservative) are roads first, neighbourhoods as distant second if at all. There are considerably more than 60 as primarily about roads as roads - that is, things called roads with roads in the title of the articles, sincwe they are about roads, not about suburbs or districts or neighbourhoods and clearly not so becausrs the articles are about roads. Is that clear enough? Listen - I'm sick to death of arguing this point with you - I can't see why on earth you would object to it. Your comments so far have made absolutely no sense on this matter. Alai, have you even ''looked'' at the articles you're arguing about? What is there about [[Kingsway (London)]], say, that makes it less than obviously about a thoroughfare? or [[Addington Street]]? Or [[City Road]]? Or [[Baylis Road]]? Or [[Lea Bridge Road]]? [[Blackfriars Road]]? [[Cockspur Street]]? [[Kennington Road]] (part of the A23, BTW)? [[Great Dover Street]] (part of the A2)? Shall I go on? Since the argument for NewYork-road-stub is to include those new York city streets currently covered by US-road-stub, I can't see any difference - or is there something special about the likes of [[50th Street (Manhattan)]] or [[Avenue C (Manhattan)]] that make them more obviously about a vehicular thoroughfares and less obviously about neighbourhoods than [[Finsbury Pavement]]? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|England-musician-stub}}===