Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/June 2007: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:28, 13 October 2010

Revision as of 19:07, 23 August 2020

Line 526:

*I don't have tools to allow an easy count, but I am currently running [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain]] through [[WP:AWB|AWB]] to split it into [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies|English]], [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Scottish constituencies|Scottish]] and [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Welsh constituencies|Welsh]] sub-categories, and I reckon that there are well over a hundred stub articles for which {{tl|GB-MP-stub}} would be useful. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

*New cat would get 108, though there's the complication that 25 would have to be double-stubbed, so this isn't exactly what you'd call a "clean split". Also bear in mind that there's existing subcats by a) party, and b) constituent nation, as well as c) currency. Given that this is somewhat in the spirit of the third axis, whose permcat was deleted ({{cl|Current British MP stubs}}, {{cl|current British MPs}}), I wonder if we shouldn't save ourselves some work by waiting until the permcats stop to-ing and fro-ing, and then come up with a consistent scheme. Oh, and if this does go ahead, I'd favour {{tl|Britain-MP-stub}} for the template. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

**Alai, the main categories are quite stable, and I haven't seen any toing and froing: I have seen no interest from any quarter in merging [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain]] with the later [[:Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament]] (mercifully, because it would be historically inaccurate). Using the {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} for the MPs from before the UK was created just causes confusion amongst editors who may assume that there has only been one Parliament at Westminster (rather than three), which may explain why I have found a dozen articles miscategorised as "UK" when they should have been GB. Delaying the stub split will merely increase the incidence of that error, and make for more work unravelling it.<br />As to the name of the template, I am wary of "Britain", because the name of the country concerned was "The Kingdom of Great Britain", whereas "Britain" is a more vague term used in several difft ways. I suggested the abbreviation because {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} uses an abbreviation, but if you prefer to avoid that, I'd be happy with {{tl|Great-Britain-MP-stub}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

***That a parent of one of the existing stub cats was just deleted does not fit ''my'' criteria for "stable". It doesn't follow from the distinct(ish)ness of the UK and GB parliaments, and the reasonable distinction in permcats that there should also be a distinction in stub cats: they're not there for the same purpose, and if we were to create every possible stub cat on a one-for-one basis with permcats, the situation would become very unmanageable. (As opposed to just fairly unmanageable, as at present.) Especially if as I say, the stub cats are already split every which way. I don't really buy the idiot-proofing argument either: you assume that people are making this error because of the stub types, and not because it's a pretty subtle error in the grand scheme of things (just ask the average Brits what the distinction is, much less article-categorisers from hither and yon); and that making the change will suddenly lead to it getting fixed, while what seems more likely is that it'll just lead to more articles being mis-''stub-tagged'' in the first instance, which if the stub cat is reworded the rescope, could increase rather than decrease mispermcatting as a second-order effect. I'm not arguing for "delay": if it's the right thing to do, it should be done as soon as possible. However, having the same stubs split three different ways or so is fairly clearly ''not'' the right thing to do: if we're going to split in this dimension, we need to take the others into account. Incidentally, I notice that at least one of the by-party splits is itself very nearly "officially oversized", so will need to be itself split in due course, so we'll have to consider whether to split regionally, or by finer-grained era (say, DoB, or by first or last year elected (or served)); as well as or instead of by-party. Just not ''all'' of them at once, for pity's sakes. I won't argue that [[Britain]] is entirely free from possible confusion, just that it beats [[GB]] on the overall clarity and ambiguity stakes. I'd also be happy with {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}} (with no hyphen in the first component, per the NGs) (assuming I can be rendered content with the category, which currently I'm far from). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

****Alai, I think that a few different issues are getting conflated here. The first thing is that your comment about "the same stubs split three different ways" is misguided: these are ''not'' the same stubs. The [[Parliament of Great Britain]] and the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] are not the same thing: the former was abolished before the creation of the latter, and they are separate bodies.<br />My main reason for proposing this stub split is that {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is being applied to articles to which it does not relate, namely to Parliamentarians from the [[Parliament of Great Britain]], who are separately categorised (for an illustration of the misleading effect, see the text in {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} as applied to [[Hugo Meynell]] or [[Lord John Cavendish]]). Fixing that is not of course a panacea, but having the "UK" stub tag attached to 100 MPs who were not members of the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] is misleading and cases inaccurate information to be appended to the articles. Sure, there may still be errors in applying it, or errors in applying {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}}, but once the split is done, those errors can be easily picked up and fixed in an AWB run; and since my proposal is for the new {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}} to add a category [[:Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1707-1800)]], misuse of the new stub will be fairly visible to editors. The current situation of labelling them all as "UK MPs" is, as you rightly point out, not the only source on confusion, but it does increase to it; if the split was done, {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} could be reworded to make it clearer that is only for MPs from 1801 onwards. Current practice is for {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} should not be added to members of the [[Parliament of Great Britain]], but that is simply wrong and should be removed from those articles; the issue at stake is whether we have an accurate stub-type to replace it, and whatever other decisions are made, I can see no benefit in having no stub tag for the nearly 500 articles in [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain]] and its subcats.<br />The second point is that I don't see the other stub types for MPs affect relate to this issue. None of the by-party stub tags apply to the [[Parliament of Great Britain]], because the parties concerned all all 19th- or 20th-century creations.<br />Thirdly, I suggest that we have a separate discussion about {{tl|UK-current-MP-stub}}; it does not overlap with {{tl|GreatBritain-MP-stub}}, and I can see a fairly simple solution to its lack of a permanent parent category. Whatever decisions are made about its fate do not affect this one. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Line 698:

::*{{tl|Braganca-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Bragança-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|VilaReal-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Porto-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{tl|Oporto-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Braga-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|VianadoCastelo-geo-stub}} (or {{tl|VianaDoCastelo-geo-stub}})