Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2019/May

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2019
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pegship (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 17 June 2019 (→College football season stubs by decade: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Doncram in topic Proposals, May 2019

Proposals, May 2019

Latest comment: 6 years ago33 comments7 people in discussion

Song stubs

I'd like to create stub categories and templates for {{1990s-hiphop-song-stub}} and {{2010s-R&B-song-stub}} to parse down Category:Hip hop song stubs (over 300 stub articles) and Category:Rhythm and blues song stubs (over 90 stub articles), respectively, as well as continue their decade stub categorization schemes. Most will fall into the requested new stub categories outside of a pre-1990s hip hop songs and pre-1950s R&B songs to meet the 60+ needed. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Norwegian film biography stubs

Category:Norwegian people stubs is over four pages/800 articles; this is one notable absence from subcats. Just manually going through I am fairly confident I can get it over 60. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

College football season stubs 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.
There are currently well over 4500 articles in Category:College football season stubs. No sub-categories currently exist, but obviously some are necessary.

I propose that we sub-categorize the stub articles by decade. As such:

Rektroth 21:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clone200: If we do this, would you be interested in a bot sorting all of the stubs for you? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rektroth: ^^ --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: That would certainly save time. -- The Man Known as Rektroth 22:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rektroth: Let me know once the proposal is closed and I'll file a brfa --DannyS712 (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pegship: it has been well over 5 days - can this be closed so that I can run the bot? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of being repetitive: I'd rather not close a discussion in which I've expressed an opinion; it was recently explained to me that that is Not Done. Anyone else? Her Pegship (speak) 21:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NRHP stubs for U.S. Virgin Islands, and for U.S. possessions in the Pacific

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.
There currently exist 206 articles in generic Category:National Register of Historic Places stubs. The vast majority of U.S. NRHP stub articles are in subcategories already existing:

which are further subcategorized by U.S. states, and

Note that the "Puerto Rico" category currently has 91 members. There are 350 NRHPs listed in Puerto Rico, 182 of which have articles so far, and 108 of which are stubs, per wp:NRHPPROGRESS report as of today. So 168 new articles may be created for existing NRHPs, plus articles for new NRHP listings.

There remain 206 in the remaining, generic "NRHP stubs" category, most of which I see are from the U.S Virgin Islands, from Guam, from other Pacific territories, etc. Per wp:NRHPPROGRESS, the total of stubs in these areas is 189 (35+75+25+25+22+5+2+0=189). (So perhaps 17 in the generic category should be put into already existing categories. But another explanation for discrepancy in numbers is that there are formerly listed NRHP places, e.g. demolished buildings, which properly have a NRHP-stub and are categorized in the NRHP system, but are not counted in the NRHPPROGRESS report, which covers just current listings. A further explanation is that separate articles are sometimes created for individual contributing buildings within NRHP-listed historic districts, and are not counted in NRHPPROGRESS report.)

I propose:

to cover all those on the Atlantic side of the U.S. (all of which are in the U.S. Virgin Islands, besides those in Puerto Rico)
but my proposal is to make just one for all of these VI ones together. Note that the number of stubs can grow from current 35 as new articles are created for the 43 current NRHPs that are currently redlinks, for new NRHP listings in VI, and for split-outs of any individual contributing buildings from NRHP historic districts. I am myself creating more VI stubs these days.
Note that there do already exist general geography stubs {{SaintCroixVI-geo-stub}}, {{SaintJohnVI-geo-stub}}, {{SaintThomasVI-geo-stub}}, and their articles are categorized into Category:United States Virgin Islands geography stubs with just the St. Croix ones subcategorized into Category:Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands geography stubs. I think all the NRHP ones, out of these, can be put into just one NRHP-stub subcategory.
to cover all the rest, which are all in U.S. territories and other possessions in the Pacific
I wondered if this should be called "Pacific Ocean Registered Historic Place stubs" instead, but the definition of Oceania seems to fit well. Oceania is a generally understood term and is defined to be vast, running from Australia and arguably to include even as far east as Hawaii, so includes all of these. (The Hawaii NRHP ones are properly covered in Category:Western National Register of Historic Places stubs. I think "Oceania" is clear in this context, and will be understood to include all of these, without confusion about the U.S. state of Hawaii.)
It would be possible to further divide this into:
but my proposal is to make just one for all these Oceania ones together. Note the number of stubs can grow from current 154 as new articles are created for the 60 current NRHPs that are currently redlinks, for separation of contributing buildings from historic district articles, and for new NRHP listings in Oceania, which would include on Wake Island and other places where there are not yet any NRHPs.
--Doncram (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Very well put! I agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs)
And further I created Category:Oceania Registered Historic Places stubs and found that {{Guam-NRHP-stub}} already existed, and I revised the latter to put its articles into the Oceania NRHP stubs category rather than the generic NRHP stubs category. --Doncram (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
And further i found {{AmericanSamoa-NRHP-stub}} and revised it the same way. At this moment there are 84 stubs in the Oceania NRHP category. Hey this discussion is great! --Doncram (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, and I finished going through all the original 206 items in the unsatisfactory generic NRHP category, and assigned them out. The final hierarchy is:

And in the end there are 148 members of the Oceania NRHP stubs category, and 47 in Category:United States Virgin Islands Registered Historic Place stubs. And only one proper member in the original Category:National Register of Historic Places stubs. All done i think. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ready to be closed, I think. Pegship or other regular here, is this okay, and could you close? Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian rules biography, 1910s birth 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:Australian rules biography, 1910s birth stubs currently has over 1,000 pages. I propose that it be split by year of birth (1910-1919). Each year has enough pages for a category:

To make the split easier, I also propose that a bot (mine) go through the 1000 pages and update the stub template accordingly. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Music award stubs/Science award stubs

Currently Category:Award stubs is overpopulated; a cursory scan several Polaris Awards, a bunch of Dove Awards, some Grammys/Latin Grammys/Swedish Grammis, various standalone awards. There are also several music awards in Category:Music stubs, and many sorted into Category:Music event stubs. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Science awards are also another large, broad category (and even larger if you say the IEEE awards, of which there are dozens, qualify) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC).

Holy cats, support both per nom & overflow! Her Pegship (speak) 16:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Cycling race 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.
Currently, Category:Cycling race stubs, which is populated by 1 template, has 2,426 different stubs in it. Below is a list of specific races where the current category contains 60 or more stubs that are the yearly iterations of the race. Each of these should have its own new template and category:

Together, these would reduce the cycling stubs category to only 1521 pages.

I'd like to further propose that a bot (mine) go through and replace these stub templates, so that editors don't need to manually subcategorize 900 stubs. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Support split per nom. Also, are there more articles in Category:Cycling stubs that should be moved to these categories? Her Pegship (speak) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pegship: I didn't see any, but once this is created (if it is) I'll do some further analysis. I was thinking of a new stub template (but not a separate category) for races with 30-59 iterations that are currently stubs, and classifying those separately will make it easier to see what pages may need to be categorized. Also, since BRFAs usually link to a discussion that agreed that a bot run would be okay, do you also support the bot edits? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I support the bot edits in order to populate upmerged templates, per y'all. Her Pegship (speak) 16:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pegship: it has been well over 5 days - can this be closed so that I can create the templates and run the bot? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd rather not close a discussion in which I've expressed an opinion; it was recently explained to me that that is Not Done. Anyone else? Her Pegship (speak) 21:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2019/May&oldid=902268943"