Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pegship (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 19 June 2007 (→{{cl|dramatist and playwright stubs}}: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, June 2007

If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the June archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.

NEW PROPOSALS



Personality & Preference Inventory


Can't find it and not sure how to put the info across as an NPOV. Will suggest stub. Can anyone help?
Cookie Monster 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{GB-MP-stub}} / Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1701-1800)

Moved from WP:SFD Grutness...wha? 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose creation of new stub template, and associated category, plus renaming of another related stub category.
The existing {{UK-MP-stub}} is designed for Members of Parliament for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which was only created in 1801 after the Acts of Union 1800. However, {{UK-MP-stub}} is also being being used for members of the predecessor Parliament of Great Britain (1707-1800), members of which should be categorised separately.
The proposed structure can be summarised as:

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous double-stubbing mashup

The following all have double-stubbings of more than 80, where one of the types is in the 600..800 range.

Most of the parentages should be obvious; two that are less so are Hospital_stubs+United_Kingdom_medical_organisation_stubs and Asian_building_and_structure_stubs+Malaysia_geography_stubs (the latter perhaps being food for thought as to what -geo- stubs are actually used for, "on the ground".) Alai 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malaysia's been long overdue for its own struct stub template at least, and now a category seems a good move - and like similar struct stubs, its parents should be Category:Asian building and structure stubs and Category:Malaysia stubs (not Category:Malaysia geography stubs, since buildings aren't normally grouped in with geo-stubs). I'd be inclined to put the UK hospitals in Category:Hospital stubs, Category:United Kingdom medical organisation stubs and Category:United Kingdom building and structure stubs, since the articles are likely to be at least in part about the buildings themselves, much like with theatre stubs and museum stubs. Yes to all the others (72 Zimbabwean sculptor stubs? Whoda thought...?), though I'd ask whether the NYC and Pittsburgh geo-stubs are likely to affect the way the rest of the state-geo-stubs are likely to be split in future... will it make for problems with Penn and NYState later? Grutness...wha? 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot the ob. whoda thought?: thanks for correcting that omission. :) I shouldn't have said "parentage", I really meant "constituents of the double-stubbing" (though in most cases they're the same thing). I don't think splitting by city is going to be a problem; elsewhere we've split by county, but then we tend to end up upmerging them to μSAs, MSAs, CSAs, unofficial regions with articles defining their scope, or totally made up ones. Cities of significant size will invariably correspond to (the population centres of) *SAs, so they can just be made a subcat. (Chicago and Chicagoland are already done this way, for example.) Alai 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US schools by state

Similar deal to below. Alai 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US radio stations by state

All are currently populated from double-upmerged templates, so again I'm inclined to speedy these. Alai 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European actor subcats

I've been creating a number of upmerged stub templates for European actors, but two of them are now at exactly 60, so no longer need to be: {{Denmark-actor-stub}} and {{Spain-actor-stub}}. I propose to create cats fairly speedily. Alai 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lithuania-footy-bio-stub}}

Upmerged template with over 60 articles. Suggest speedy create cat.Waacstats 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geology stubs subcats

Parent is oversized; these look to be viable, and not to overlap too much, if I'm understanding the category structure correctly. Alai 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support split & willing to help populate as time permits. Vsmith 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; good idea. Avenue 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - will sit nicely along glaciology-stub. With the usual caveat about volcanology (vulanology?) not being for actual volcanoes, of course. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes sense to me with the assumption that all these stubs will be under the roof of Geology project. Solarapex 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They'll all be subcats of Category:Geology stubs, and a project link or banner on the category page wouldn't seem amiss. Alai 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dramatist and playwright stubs

I don't have an exact count for this (though I suspect it's close to threshold just from the UK), but surely we should have this given the two existing national D&P stub types. Alai 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom children's writer stubs

Oversized parent, 64 of them are in the "children's writers" tree, and no other "by genre" cat. Alai 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legal term stubs

At least 90 of them; parent is of course very oversized. Existing subcat Category:Latin legal stubs (should be "phrases"). Alai 18:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronic sports stubs

There is an Electronic sports category (Category:Electronic sports) but no stub. I think it would be a good idea to create one for a bunch of Electronic sports articles that may begin to arise as esports hits national TV. One such is the Complexity Gaming article. Digx 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose need enough existing stub articles. Monni 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States media company stubs

Parent oversized -- indeed, just about double-oversized -- 91 in the corresponding permcat hierarchy. Alai 03:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{linebacker-stub}} and {{runningback-stub}}

Both are over 700, propose split by decade of birth as per precedent set by other position splits. Waacstats 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be very grateful if someone could popoulate these by bot, my knowledge of that side of things is poor, I will go through and try to pick up anything the bot misses, otherwise it will be a long hard slog. Waacstats 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{England-footy-midfielder-stub}} and defendesr and strikers

Different shaped ball same solution by decade of birth split Defender and Midifelders are over 700 and strikers are just shy of 600 (stitch in time) nb goalkeepers are way off at less than 300 and not worth splitting yet.Waacstats 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military decoration stubs

This looks viable as a subcat of Category:Order, decoration, and medal stubs, and more to the point will help get rid of a few from Category:Military stubs, which despite some recent shrinkage is still oversized. Alai 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seine-et-Marne geography stubs

The region cat Category:Île-de-France geography stubs is oversized now, so time to split into departments. Only this one is clearly over threshold at the moment, at 409 (cough). However, some others are close-ish Val-de-Marne, 49; Yvelines, 41; Seine-Saint-Denis, 40; Essonne, 39; and Val-d'Oise, 37. Paris is only at 32, but when one adds in the {{Streets of Paris-stub}} (see /D), it's also rather close. I'll create templates for all of them, and then see what happens. Alai 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at /D, I object to adding the streets to that section. Road-stubs aren't listed as geo-stubs for anywhere else, so why Paris? Far better to make a France-road-stub and category for it to upmerge to. As to Seine-et-Marne's category and the other templates, though, that sounds fine. Grutness...wha? 03:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't especially care in this instance, since one the first one's done it'll be off my to-do list (hopefully for some considerable time), but as I said the previous time you made this objection, I don't see the expansion-oriented logic of lumping urban streets, and articles like Place du Colonel Fabien, in with say A151 autoroute (not marked as a stub, but looks like one to me). Some common sense about when things "must" be sorted by type (as well as when they must not be) would be a plan. Alai 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see why France should be treated any differently to the UK, US, Australia, and Canada - in each of those cases, urban roads are not treated as geo-stubs, they quite logically get road-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political term stubs

Category:Politics stubs is another large and murky type, but this looks like a viable subcat. Alai 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good template name in mind? Valentinian T / C 01:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest paralleling geo-term-stub and the like, and making it {{poli-term-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Qualification stubs

The Category:Education stubs are long-standing oversized, and the corresponding permcats hurt my eyes and brain. But this looks a clear-cut case: 70 of these. I wonder if we shouldn't also consider an {{edu-bio-stub}}; the number don't look tremendous, but it'd also be a parent to existing cats (some of which I can't help but wonder if there's over-sorting to). Alai 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Federalist Paper stubs

Category:United States government stubs is oversized, this would take care of it for the time being: there's 69 of these. Alternatively, could broaden this out to Category:United States official document stubs, of which there'd be 82 (including the above, which is a subcat). Alai 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that strictly speaking the Federalist papers, for all that they are used to interpret the founders' intent with respect to the Constitution, they aren't official. Indeed they're a subcat of a different cat, United States historical documents. Given the brevity of these papers (after all, each was in origin a newspaper editorial) I'm hard-pressed to see where a lot of these will ever be more than short articles serving as a bridge between articles on Supreme Court cases that cited them and the relevant Wikisource entry. That said I could live with a Category:United States Constitution stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the subcatting route I'm referring to (since it's not in the government subtree), but rather, Category:Federalist Papers being in Category:United States Constitution, which is indeed in Category:Official documents of the United States. Some Chinese whispers at work, perhaps. By permcat, Category:United States Constitution stubs would contain the 69 Federalist Papers, and exactly one other. (Usual undercatting caveats.) Alai 03:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a case where A being a subcat of B and B a subcat of C both make sense despite A not being a subcat of C in any way shape or form. That happens with cats. Since there won't ever be any more Federalist papers written, I'm dubious about a stub type for them. It probably would be more profitable to go with {{US-federal-gov-stub}} / Category:United States Government stubs (note the capitalization of Government) with parent Category:Government of the United States and move the existing {{US-gov-stub}} / Category:United States government stubs up in parentage to Category:Government in the United States as there are a number of State and local government stubs in United States government stubs that strictly speaking shouldn't be under the current scope. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant by the "Chinese whispers" effect, and yes, it happens with cats: an annoying amount. I agree that the FPs aren't the most obvious stub cat scope, but if these are "permastubs", at least they're not cluttering up the parents, and if they do get expanded, they can be upmerged. However, I'd certainly also be in favour of splitting up these on fed/state/local grounds, whether with one, two or three such local categories. It also looks to me that Category:United States state government stubs would be viable, with 74 articles at the most conservative estimates. (i.e. current US-govs in the immediate subcats of Category:State governments of the United States). I'd also agree with your re-parenting suggestion (what an entirely inobvious and opaque distinction in category names!). Alai 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio Presenter stubs

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.204.52 (talk)

Old business

Everything from here on down has passed the five day proposal period. Unless discussion to determine consensus is actively on-going, proposals may be acted upon, to be created, or noted as not approved. Move this marker up as time passes.

Category:Australian sport stubs

Australia stubs are oversized, this looks like the most coherent group to split out, with 58 in the Category:Sport in Australia permcat tree. Alai 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Equiptment/Alarms stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedjatclubrock (talk • contribs)

That is not it. I mean Sirens, Horns and commercial fire alarms. For ex see notifier— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedjatclubrock (talk • contribs)

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Telecommunications term stubs

Oversized parent, 54 of these on the basis of catting; shouldn't be hard to find a few more. Alai 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian scientist stubs

Surprised we don't have this one already. At any rate, parent is now Officially Big, 141 permcat-based possibilities for this. Alai 05:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District geography stubs

BC-geo-stubs are oversized, splitting by regional district seems the obvious thing to do. 40 on the basis of just double-stubbing. Alai 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television documentary stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was hold off for now.
Another reproposal: see here. If people want to actually go ahead with the topic-based fishing expedition, I'll hold off; if not, this looks the only one that's remotely close to being viable on the basis of permcatting. (Sport is about 30, everything else way below.) Alai 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Chinese scientist stubs

Touch and go at 58, but much needed, as the China-bios are still growing: almost at 1000. Alai 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economics and finance book stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category:Non-fiction book stubs are still oversized; Category:Business books, Category:Finance books and Category:Economics books seem to disappear up their own fundaments in a category cycle, so pick your take for a suitable category name. Population of 72, by my count. Alai 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:2000s thriller film stubs

'00s drama films is oversized, this looks like the most promising possible new subcat... but only 43 are catted that way. Anyone think they can drag up another 17? (I could start with populating an upmerged template if that would help.) Alai 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States opera singer stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Seems to be 60-odd of these. The opera singers aren't in urgent need of being split, but the US-singer-stubs are, and this would take care of a handful of them, at least. Alai 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom[reply]

{{US-rail-stub}} subtypes

Oversized, here's two possibilities:

or:

Anyone have a preference? Alai 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we do the old split into 50 templates and upmerge to the 4 regions. Otherwise no preference (both?) Waacstats 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble with that is there'll be a lot of multi-stubbing, as most railroads seem to cover more than one state, and in some cases a large number of states. I'll see if I can get some numbers of that, though... Alai 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about splitting out locomotives and/or trains? Would that reduce the burden any? Grutness...wha? 10:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, not a bad plan... It's a little swamped in the numbers by the mass of railway operating companies, but if we smoosh together the contents of the Category:Trains and Category:Rolling stock (I'd have thought one would be a subcat of the other, but seemingly I'd have been wrong), there's around 80. It's a somewhat broad church, but at least it would separate them from the above. Alai 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be especially useful to split out the paper railroads since I imagine that they are most likely to remain stubby and provide the worst inflation to the numbers. Mangoe 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s Japanese single stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Category:2000s single stubs is oversized; we'd ideally want to split by genre, but isn't the Japanese music scene nigh unto a genre unto itself? There's 120 of these, at any rate. Only other obvious possibility seems to be #1 singles, which it strikes me is unlikely to be of much use, since it smooshes together #1s in completely different countries and charts, which is pretty pointless for almost any editor I can think of. (The singles and songs need either more use of "genre" cats, or else for their by-artists cats to be put in genre categories, as the album-by-artist cats are.) Alai 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I understand things, the Japanese music scene is separate from that in the United States. I need a new stub category for an article on the A&M single "Reimy - Speed of Light" on which I am still gathering data (some awaiting translation from ja.Wikipedia.org). Recommend, as an alternate, Category:Japanese song stubs. - B.C.Schmerker 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Latin America and the Caribbean singer stubs

Category:Singer stubs is large again, and the biggest unsplit countries by permcat are Brazil and Argentina, with Jamaica and the Dominican Republic in single-digit remainder. Before anyone protests that we split the Americas into "North" and "South"... well, why? That's not how the UN geoscheme works, and we really need to decide whether we're following it, or not. This would be smallish, but Mexico would be an existing subcat, plus there's probably significant undercounting. Alai 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, we already have {{SouthAm-singer-stub}} which overlaps. Monni 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'd missed that, sorry. But that's a) an upmerged template, that doesn't seem to have immediate prospects of categorical viability with that scope, b) at a level that doesn't correspond to any permcat, and c) is at the third level of the UN geoscheme: which indicates to me that it's not the right way of tagging such articles, in any respect. The question remains, do we want to follow the UN geoscheme, or not? (At least in cultural and human geography matters: if this were a geological type, that'd be a different matter.) Alai 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Football

I don't know if this counts as a proposal but, I would like to propose we do something with {{ArenaFootballLeague-stub}}. It was nominated for discussion a while back and was kept upmerged to Category:American football stubs. Having looked at the what links here for the template and the discussion it appears that it is to be used on players. I propose this is upmerged to Category:American football biography stubs or as it has over 30 articles and a wikiproject given its own category. I have to admit not knowing much about this sport so I don't know which would be best. If this needs posting elsewhere let me know and i will move it. Waacstats 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US-tv-prog subcats by decade

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create as revised.
This has been lingering oversized for a while, and on the basis of categorisation, I see only one feasible axis to break it down further:

(Or alternatively "series" per the permcats, if that's a useful distinction.) Alai 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we hold off a bit while I slog through and see how much re-sorting I can do? I think a lot of them can be re-sorted by genre, at which point maybe we can make genre-related sub-cats. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine with me, let us know when you know more... BTW, there might be another db dump soonish, so if people want to add genre-based permcats, that might also help. Alai 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've dug through about half of the {{US-tv-prog-stub}} articles and found many double-stubbed along with the appropriate genre. I think nearly everything in that category can be re-stubbed by genre. Can you do that voodoo that you do so well, and check to see which genres could use splitting? (since the toolserver is still out of date...) I'm finding a lot of non-fiction tv shows, particularly sports and cooking shows, which might be big enough to split out. Or maybe news shows. Thanks for any help you can give me. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where I've gone wrong: was crunching from the wrong parent; there are by-genre cats, just not US-specific ones. My bad for missing that in the first instance, sorry.

So it looks like comedy, non-fiction, drama, news and children's are pretty much gimmes (factoring in some modest degree of undercounting in the latter two cases). Comedy is possibly big enough to consider subcats, though that's not urgent. Alai 01:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here's how these are ordered:
...so I propose a {{news-tv-prog-stub}} and maybe a {{sport-tv-prog-stub}}, although I don't see that in the list. Maybe upmerged {{talk-tv-prog-stub}} and {{game-tv-prog-stub}}. Any takers? Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me, for one. Sports isn't on the list because I once again didn't pick a general enough route: there's 46 under Category:Sports television, though, so that sounds very plausible, too. Alai 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Split of Category:American football stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Over 600 articles and the entire first page is either drafts or seasons, don't think that we have enough for a drft-stub but certainly we have enough for a season stub I propose Category:American football season stubs with the template called {{AmericanFootball-season-stub}} or {{Amfoot-season-stub}}. Waacstats 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a recount we do have enough for a Category:American football draft stubs again fed by which ever is deemed more acceptable {{AmericanFootball-draft-stub}} or {{Amfoot-draft-stub}}
The main template in the parent is {{Americanfootball-stub}}, so these should follow suit. Strong support on the first, and milder support on the second, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

{{Producer-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.
I think there needs to be a producer stub, because right now I've noticed that a lot of producers are just listed under stub. I think it would make things a little more organized, if they had their own stub category. Also, from there you can get more specific, like tv-producer-stub or movie-producer-stub. It's just an idea. Anyone have any thoughts on this? kc12286 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for it. I guess it's listed under films. Well in that case, maye adding a tv-producer-stub would be helpful. kc12286 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

{{Ancient-Euro-bio-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
This one may need a little brainstorming from the WP:WSS regulars. During discussion with User: Apcbg about the unproposed discovery Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub, it occurred to me that a stub covering biographies of ancient Europeans not covered by the Roman or Greek stub types would probably be very useful and would almost certainly reach 60 stubs, with Thracians, Spartans, Celts, Teutons and the like. IIRC we recently had a similar call for an Etruscan-bio-stub, which this would also cover. It does face a couple of problems, however: defining "Ancient" and defining "Europe". Personally, I'd define Ancient as being the same as BC and would be lenient on Europe to include Phoenicians, Trojans and Carthaginians - none of whom could accuately be described as European. And if that was to be the coverage, it might need a better name ("Classical-bio-stub"?). Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 05:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zlatna maska teres-2.jpgThat would be a satisfactory solution I believe. Just one suggestion: Could we please illustrate the new Ancient-Euro-bio-stub with the picture used in Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub? It's the golden mask of a Thracian king, and reputedly the Thracians upheld the earliest cultural tradition in Europe (including the abovementioned 'peri-European' peoples too); as you possibly know the world's oldest gold (dated 46th century BC) was found near Varna. Apcbg 12:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable - the only other thoughts I had were the statue of Boudicca in Westminster, UK, and the statue of the dying Gaul - neither of which would be easily recognisable at that size. Discussing the stub icon's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, though - I'd prefer to get the actual name and scope of the thing sorted out first! Grutness...wha? 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on stub-template names, but 'Ancient-Europe-bio-stub' seems better to me; with 'Ancient-Euro-bio-stub' one would expect to see an 'Ancient-Dollar-bio-stub' too :-) Apcbg 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. "Euro-" is used as a standard for Europe-related stub templates. Perhaps it should be the full word, but it would require a hell of a lot of work to get them all changed over to Europe. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just fine with me. Apcbg 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and the image of the Thracian gold mask is fine. I presume the category name (when we have 60 stubs) will be Category:Ancient European people stubs ? Valentinian T / C 07:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, the 'Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub' seems to have been transformed by User:Amalas into 'Ancient-Thrace-stub' (displaying however the former text "Ancient Thracians biographical article"); subject closed or what? Apcbg 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Anime and manga -- do-over

We've been around this one before, but hopefully we might get a bit more traction this time. Parent is of course enormous. I hope I'm on solid ground with at least the first one, as it was already suggested at the corresponding WPJ (at which I'm about to drop a note about this). I wonder if a still broader Category:Anime and manga biography stubs would also be handy.

  1. Category:Manga artist stubs 186
  2. Category:Anime OVA stubs 139
  3. Category:Anime film stubs 97
  4. Category:Science fiction anime stubs 144
  5. Category:Shōjo stubs 108
  6. Category:Mecha anime stubs 76
  7. Category:Fantasy anime stubs 71

As to the others, I'm easy either way on whether it makes more sense to split by medium, or by genre.

  • Support Category:Manga artist stubs, as most manga artist articles are stubs. Glad you took it up, I never got around listing all eligible articles (there are so many!). Not sure about the other cats though, as this would mean you could apply multiple stub cats on one article (a mecha-sci fi-fantasy OVA for instance), it could get confusing. Ninja neko 08:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine we'd (at most) want to do either the form/medium axis, or the genre axis, but not both. Since the "series" are in theory already split (that is, the type exists, but isn't significantly sorted to), and since it would presumably lead to less overlap, maybe the former makes more sense. Alai 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the ever-increasing size of the parent stub type, can someone explain to me exactly what "maintaining" of this the anime WPJ is doing at present? From a stub-sorting point of view, it's not acceptable for this just to grow endlessly, and I can't believe it's very useful for anyone else (supposedly) working on these, either, at least as regards the chances of these articles ever being "unstubbed". Is the project going to agree to any way of sorting the remainder of these? (Note "agree to", not "actually do".) Alai 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are 1847 stub anime and manga articles. If you split OVAs and films off then that would removed only 236 of the 1847 still leaving over 1600 stubs left in the one category, but some OVAs have film adaptions and vice versa. And science fiction/mecha/fantasy would have even more overlap. --Squilibob 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for one thing you're using the wrong numbers: this has nothing to do with the "stub class articles", which would remain as-is. The overlap is actually pretty small: around 25 of the above. There's about 1200 A&M-stubs per se, and sorting 200 of them would be an excellent first step, in my book. Also bear in mind that these numbers are on the basis of existing categorisation, and are probably considerable underestimates (I'll compile a list of the A&M stubs with no other category, in the vague hopes someone might actually categorise them). If someone else has a better idea as to how to split these up I'm all ears, but if the project is just going to say "no" to everything... Alai 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fungal plant disease stubs, and such like

Category:Plant disease stubs is now huge: over 1300. The only trouble with a "fungal" subtype is that it look like it would be huge, too: hundreds of articles were double-stubbed with fungus-stub at the time of the last db dump a week ago, and there's been a lot more created since. Broadly speaking I'd imagine we'd want to split further by either taxonomy of the infective agent, or else by taxonomy of effected species. Alai 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the solution is - perhaps I should stop creating all these stubs, and in fact, I'm pretty well done - I wanted to create stubs for all of the pathogens listed in the various disease lists. However, the issue is not really just restricted to 'stubs'. The 'Plant pathogens and diseases' category is now also very large. How could it be better organized? I noticed that the fungi category includes subcategories such as Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes. Most of the plant disease stubs are for Ascomycetes, however, very few have so far been added to this category. If they were, the category would also be large. There also some subcategories for specific genera. I don't know if we want to start creating genera specific stubs (e.g Fusarium pathogen stub, ...) or crop specific stubs (Canola disease stub ..), although the taxonomic approach seems to be one that has been used for the organization of plant species - although I'm not sure if this is also reflected in the plant stubs.Somanypeople 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's really out of our brief. Perhaps the best solution would be for you to find whatever WikiProject is most involved with this subject and work out how to subdivide the main parent category - Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology perhaps, or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi or even [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology. That would make our job easier, too, since we can then divide the stub cats along whatever line the permcats are divided. If the stub category isn't going to grow much larger any time soon (and you did say you've more or less finished what you're doing), then we can hold off any split for a short while, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi I have been adding fungal plant diseases to their coverage but its quiet a small wikiproject. The majority of plant diseases are fungal, so the creation of a fungal plant disease catergory would, your correct, be huge. It may be best to divivde them by their hosts then. I suggest cereal disease stub, tree disease stub ect and I also suggest a general plant virus stub due to the number of viral family stub articles where all the members of that family are plant pathogens. Viruses also have a very large host range so it'd be harder to classify them that way. Million_Moments 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On permcats (though as G. says, this isn't strictly on-topic for this page, but what the hey) I'd image one would want categorisation by both organism and by host. Say, cat:<taxon> or cat:<taxon> plant diseases, plus something along the lines of cat:diseases of <taxon> (or cat:<taxon> diseases). Whether one wants "intersection categories" between the two is a judgement call. Once those are in place, then it becomes just a matter of which of the two (or which combination) is the most useful for editors expanding them. BTW, notice also this proposal to split up the fungi per se, which presumably will overlap a great deal with this. Alai 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{mil-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create by continent.
Mil-stub is 5 pages and needs a split. {{Asia-mil-stub}}, {{Africa-mil-stub}}, {{SouthAm-mil-stub}} would be a good beginning and could also be the parent cat's to the existing x-mil-stub. Also, a {{country-mil-stub}} would be useful.--Thomas.macmillan 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the continent splits (plus, if deemed useful, simular for Oceania, CentralAm, Caribbean and MEast). Not so sure about the country-mil-stub, though - what would that be used for? If simply "Military of Foo"-type articles, wouldn't they be better simply given their respective continental-mil-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

{{pharmacology-stub}} subtypes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Bigger than ever, but categorisation seems to have improved, so the following all look to be plausible now:

Support. Monoclonal antibodies in particular would benefit from subsorting. I presume {{antimicrobial-stub}} would apply to antifungals, antiparasitics etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/June&oldid=139247077"