Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m archiving |
m finishing nov archive |
||
Line 12:
**{{tl|sfp top}} for customized result description (use <nowiki>{{sfp top|result}}</nowiki>).
*Discussion footer: {{tl|sfd bottom}}
===Television episode subcats===
{{sfp create}}
*{{cl|United States television episode stubs}} 556
*{{cl|Children's television episode stubs}} 313
*{{cl|Animated television episode stubs}} 296
*{{cl|Comedy television episode stubs}} 289
*{{cl|United States children's television episode stubs}} 176
*{{cl|Doug episode stubs}} 115
*{{cl|Sitcom episode stubs}} 112
*{{cl|Seinfeld episode stubs}} 84
*{{cl|Drama television episode stubs}} 71
Parent is now over 800. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', especially specific show categories that make 60; the genres are looking pretty large and this is undersorted from {{tl|tv-stub}}. [[User:Crystallina|Crystallina]] 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Definitely a good idea. '''''[[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>''' 14:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Television character subcats===
{{sfp create}}
*{{cl|Drama television character stubs}} 146
*{{cl|Comedy television character stubs}} 91
Parent is now oversized. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''; the parent is probably also undersorted from {{tl|TV-stub}}. [[User:Crystallina|Crystallina]] 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Looks good. '''''[[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>''' 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Poetry subtypes===
{{sfp create}}
*{{cl|Poem stubs}} 236
*{{cl|United Kingdom poem stubs}} 107
*{{cl|Poetry collection stubs}} 63
*{{cl|Years in poetry stubs}} 55
Poetry-stubs are five listings pages (i.e., > 800 articles). If we lump in the by-decade and by-century stubs, the last-mentioned (by some name or other) is more than viable. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'd like to suggest the following as well
:* {{cl|Poetic form stubs}}
:* {{cl|Poetry movement stubs}}
:* {{cl|Poetry award stubs}}
:I'll add in the numbers if I get the time. [[User:Stumps|Stumps]] 08:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', and if the poetry award stubs don't add up, how about broadening it to {{cl|Literary award stubs}}? Cheers, [[User:Pegship|<b>H</b>er <b>P</b>egship]] 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. What would the Years in poetry be for, however? '''''[[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>''' 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
**The numerous stub articles in {{cl|Years in poetry}}, such as [[1265 in poetry]]. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|Dominican Republic baseball pitcher stubs}}===
{{sfp create}}
Seemingly we're splitting these by currently-underpopulated decade-they-played types (were these proposed?), but by-country might have some legs, despite clearly massive undercategorisation. DR is at 68, Cuba 32, US at 25 (!), Canada at 21. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{tl|punctuation-stub}}===
{{sfp top|create upmerged template}}
This stub template would, obviously, be used for punctuation-related stubs (such as [[Stet]]).
I'll try and see if I can find some others that need this tomorrow. {{User:Blast_san/signature|11.22.06|2306}}
:Seems unlikely to me that you'd find enough stubs for it, but if you do then it might well be worthwhile. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 04:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:The cited example isn't punctuation, it's a proofreading mark. There's an existing {{cl|typography stubs}}; I wouldn't be opposed to an upmerged {{tl|punctuation-stub}} feeding into that category, if people feel the need, and there's some middling number of stubs. I'm almost certain there's not enough in the {{cl|punctuation}} permanent category (and one smallish subcat) for a fullblown type, though. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Bank stubs===
{{sfp create}}
Although I haven't counted them I'm 100% sure splitting {{tl|Asia-bank-stub}} and {{tl|Euro-bank-stub}} from the 4-page long {{tl|bank-stub}} would be viable.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{tl|Fort-Worth-stub}}===
{{sfp top|take to SFD}}
Already been created, apologies. Greater than 30 articles within scope, of course. [[User:drumguy8800|<font color="navy">drumguy8800</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Drumguy8800|<font color="green" style="font-size: 7pt;">C</font>]] [[User talk:Drumguy8800|<font color="green" style="font-size: 7pt;">T</font>]] 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:...but no WikiProject, which means it needs 60. Also, since it isn't a subcategory of Worth-stub, it should be FortWorth-stub. ''If'' it's needed at all, which I doubt. Given the size of Dallas-stub's category, it would make far more sense to have both in one category. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:This is exactly the sort of issue that I was talking about the other day. {{cl|Cities in Texas}} exists, yet has no stub category in it or any of it's sub-categories. {{cl|Dallas stubs}} and now {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} are sub-categories of {{cl|Texas stubs}}, which itself is a sub-category of {{cl|Texas}}... in other words, it's a mess! Unless i'm missing something, bothe Dallas and this new stub (if indeed neccesary) should be members of a {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} shouldn't they? --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 07:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::And as I said at the time, we don't want to create all such stub categories, because we don't want several hundred thousand types (as there are permanent categories), and we don't want articles stub-tagged with every possible category they should be in. The qualifier "if necessary" is correct, and key. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::*That's fine, but we seem to be in the habit of creating our own category trees within the "{whatever} stubs" categories that we do create. This is my primary critisizm here. In this particular instance, my opinion would be to sfd both {{cl|Dallas stubs}} and {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} (and by extension, to sfd this {{tl|Fort-Worth-stub}} template). Then, the articles in the current {{cl|Dallas stubs}} category, as well as those that would be in the {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}} should go into a {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} category. So, I guess what i'm saying is that this proposal should be changed to be a proposal for a Cities in Texas stubs category and template, for the reasons stated. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't follow what you mean by "our own category trees". Every stub type ''is'' in the (permanent) category tree, and the considerable majority of them have a direct "permanent parent". I really don't for the life of me see why you're saying that {{cl|Fort Worth, Texas}} shouldn't have a corresponding stub-cat, but that {{cl|Cities in Texas stubs}} ''should'' -- the former might be marginal, but the latter doesn't make any sense at all, sorry. Are you objecting to "skipping a level" in the hierarchy... or what? If you're simply looking for a broader scope, wouldn't that of {{cl|Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex}} or {{cl|Tarrant County, Texas}} make more sense? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:Look at it this way. The category [[:Category:Beaches of Monaco]] exists. it contains the one article on a Monegasque beach that exists in wikipedia, and - given the country has a coastline of 4100 metres - mch of which is harbour - it is hardly likely we will get many more. Let's say there are two more beaches in monaco worthy of articles. That would leave a {{cl|Monaco beach stubs}} with at most three articles, and likely no articles at all. There is a very good reason why we have a minimum threshold for stub categories: to stop editors needing to check dozens of categories to find articles they can expand. it is likely, for example, that anyone who can edit articles on beaches in Monaco knows enough about the country to edit articles about Monaco in general. Thus, we have only {{cl|Monaco stubs}}. In exactly the same way, it makes little sense to have two small categories for Dallas and for Forth Worth since the twin-city conurbation is likely to attract the same set of editors. As has been pointed out, at a rough estimate, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000 times before, having "City stubs" categories and the like is an extraordinarily bad idea. As, in general, is the idea of trying to in any way create stub categories to represent an identical hierarchy to the permcats. They don't perform the same job, as my example above points out. Trying to shoehorn the same category structure on categories designed for readers and for editors simply will not work, and if attempted would pretty much stuff all the work which we've been doing in stub sorting for the last few years. I'm not saying I'm against this in any way, but I will say that it is one of the least sensible ideas I've heard regarding stub sorting, and if anyone tries to make such categories I will speedily delete them out of hand, and I don't care if I get banned for doing so. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*ok, ok, hang on. I basically agree with everything that you've said above. Either i'm not being clear in what I am saying, or it's being misinterpreted. In instances where the categories are already established, and an actual need for a stubs subcategory exists ''under the current guidelines'', I see no reason that stub categories should form their own separate tree. Your example is an extreme instance, and I highly doubt that such an occurance would come up. I find myself thinking that your attitue(s) are becoming entrenched in a "shout down the new guy" mentality. If you do not wish to consider changes to the system regardless of opinions, please let me know now so I don't waste my time. Thanks. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
**I have to say I think you're not being clear in what you're saying, or at least, Grutness and I are both having similar interpretation difficulties. We're ''not'' creating separate trees, as I've tried to explain. If you agree with Grutness, and aren't suggesting changing the existing guidelines, I don't see why you feel you're the victim of "entrenched attitudes". As I, after repeated attempts, don't understand what you wish to change (or not change? not even that's clear, to be honest), I think you're more of a vuctim of "total confusion". [[User:Alai|Alai]] 10:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
**This is going OT to what began this section, so I will reply on the talk page. In regards to this topic, I would supoprt an sfd for {{cl|Fort Worth stubs}}. --[[User:Ohms law|Ohms law]] 11:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|Ancient Rome geographic stubs}}===
| |||