Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Open Encyclopedia

pl:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Sortowanie stubów/Propozycje

Shortcut: WP:WSS/P

WikiProject Stub sorting
edit

Information
Project page	talk
⇒ List of stub types	talk
⇒ List of stub redirects	talk
⇒ Naming guidelines	talk
⇒ To do	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Criteria (A)	talk
Proposals (A)	talk
Discoveries (A)	talk
Deletion (Log)	talk
Category:WikiProject Stub sorting

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read #Proposing new stubs - procedure beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also propose anything else related to stubs in #Other stub-related discussions.

1 Proposing new stubs - procedure
2 Proposals, February 2006
3 Proposals, January 2006
4 Proposals, December 2005
5 Other stub-related discussions
6 Stub Correction Please

[edit]

Proposing new stubs - procedure

Proposing new stubs

If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:

List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
- Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or noticeabiliy of the topic
Find a good number^{[{{fullurl:}}#endnote_good_number]} of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:
- currently be marked with stub;
- currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
- a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
- not marked as a stub.
Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
One week after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

[edit]

Proposals, February 2006

[edit]

Miscellaneous stub

Proposed: {{Miscellaneous-stub}}

Reason: (Apologies for already creating the template as I did not read WP:STUB and was about to notify people of the stub. If it fails, please fell free to delete it). Anyway, generally for templates to do not fit into any stub category, like terrorist encyclopaedia becuase there is not stub to fit it. There are quite a lot of articles, that I would say, fit into this category. I have not yet added them. Thank you. ^KILO-_LIMA 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose this. Quite aside from quibbling about the alleged uncategorisability of this particular stub, I think it's a huge mistake to essentially duplicate (or split) {{stub}} according to this meta-criterion. Alai 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. As Alai said, please use "Stub" if you are unsure. Others will take it from there. Regards. --Valentinian 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - A categorization is successful insofar as it avoids categories like "miscellaneous". -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
oppose thats what Cat:stubs is for. ISTR that one of these was sfdd in the past for that reason, too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per GTBacchus. --Naha|^(talk) 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Educational computer or video game stub

Proposed stub: {{educational-cvg-stub}}

Reason: There are quite a few cvg-stubs that are educational games that cannnot be sorted into any specific ones at this time. About every week, one or two new ones crop up. Thunderbrand 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- support: sounds good to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- support: anything to make stub sorting easier and more productive! --Naha|^(talk) 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

New Jersey Road stub

Proposed stub: {{New-Jersey-road-stub}} Reason: Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Jersey has a bunch of lists for roads, traffic circles, and similar transportation features. A lot of the articles are simply stubs, and have no stubs on them at all! Adding them into a separate, New Jersey category, rather than lumping them into the general {{US-road-stub}}, makes them more likely to get expanded and easier to find. Just a few examples:

See the project itself for more lists with articles. Also notice how many articles in those lists aren't even created yet, which means that when they do, they will probably be stubs as well. Lensovet 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to consider {{NewJersey-State-Highway-stub}} since that's where most of the road stubs are. But I suppose this could work since KY follows this. (Would it be worthwhile to start another WikiProject for the highwyays? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess so, but these circles really need to get some work on them and I was hoping it would make them more visible. Also, West Virginia has a general "roads" category. As for starting another project, that's something to talk with the NJ Proj people about (or do you mean a wiki-wide road project?) -Lensovet 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I suppose it depends on the state, if there are a lot of rural roads with articles thatt aren't numbered then it may be best to use road. Plus we don't have to worry about caps. Regarding a separate state highways project, I was meaning something like WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Also, I just remembered, NJ also has county roads, which could also fit into this category. Despite having numbers, though, calling them highways would be completely inapproriate. Lensovet 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
How many of these are there, anyway? Current stub articles, that is. I don't see (m)any in US-roads... The wider scope and name would be preferable if it makes it a more viable number, but I suspect it's too small with either scope. Alai 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Look at List of traffic circles in New Jersey and List_of_500-series_county_routes_in_New_Jersey. Nearly all of the articles are stubs. Lensovet 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks. The first would argue for the broader category (if either). The second is almost entirely redlinks, though; exactly one stub would seem to be linked to from there. Are there significantly more NJ-r-s's elsewhere? Alai 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    - I see what you're getting at, but the reason I brought this up was because Kentucky has under 30 an Arizona has just 10. Also look at some of the routes listed on State_highways_in_New_Jersey. Just as an example, Route 12 and Route 13. Lensovet 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Comet Stub

Proposed stub: {{comet-stub}} Reason: There are many comets listed in the astronomy-stub category, and if Asteroids have their own subcat, Comets should too! A list of just a few articles that apply are below.

Again, that is just a few of the numerous comet stubs within astronomy stubs. --lightdarkness 04:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Insurance Stub

Proposed stub: {{insurance-stub}} Shoefly 02:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How many (existing) stubs do you forsee being given this new type? What existing type(s) would they be split from? Can you give some examples of stubs that would be given this template? --TheParanoidOne 12:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

US Congressman Stub

Proposed stub: {{US-Congressman-stub}} Reason: In the {{US-politician-stub}} there is many politicians that can not be categorized depending on their state. First they might lived in various states. Second, I feel that "federal" politician should not be in the state category. --Jan Smolik 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that US congressmen and congresswomen were always listed as being "(Party name) representative for State X". In which case it would be very clear which state they represented and therefore which state category they should go in. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's ok to keep congressmen in the state-politician-stub categories, but i think there should be something like {{USFed-politician-stub}} for politicians known only for their work on the federal level.--Carabinieri 14:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like USFed more than congressman. Anyway with stubs you do no know whether they are both, you usualy have just "John Smith was a US senator from Texas from 1945 to 1949." --Jan Smolik 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They are sorted this way in Categories but not in stub categories. --Jan Smolik 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just keep them as US-politician-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Because that leads to people sorting them by the state they were born in, or something like that.--Carabinieri 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Because people will tend to add mayor of Austin as US-politician-stub and not as Texas-politician-stub. It would be more difficult to find out which people realy should be in US and which are there incorectly and should be sorted by state. --Jan Smolik 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Puerto Rican Bio Stub

Proposed stub: {{Puerto Rican-bio-stub}} I check the bios listed on the List of Puerto Ricans page daily and I have found many articles which should be tagged as stubs and others that are tagged as American stubs. I therefore propose the creation of a {{Puerto Rican-bio-stub}}. Three examples of the many articles which would require said stub would be:

Thank you for taking my request into consideration. Tony the Marine 07:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think there would be 50+ stubs, I don't see there being a problem - as long as it is clear that it's for for people living in or born in Puerto Rico, though, rather than simply people of Puerto Rican descent. IIRC, many people who have never been to PR still regard themselves as Puerto Rican by dint of their ancestry, so that might be a concern (the template wording should make it clear what it is and isn't for). The name should be {{PuertoRico-bio-stub}} for consistency, BTW. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...that's interesting. Looks like someone's recently created one without telling anyone or proposing it. Under the circumstances, it seems to have been a reasonable idea... Grutness...wha? 09:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

More geo- and struct-stubs

Both Malawi and Saudi Arabia have reached 65, so are goodies to split:

{{Malawi-geo-stub}}
{{SaudiArabia-geo-stub}}

And three more stcruct splits by location seem likely. None of these actually has 65 stubs in the general struct-stub categories, but all are close and there are many more in the struct by purpose categories like reli-struct-stub and stadium-stub, so all should easily reach 65:

Grutness...wha? 07:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems with these, though I'd prefer {{MiddleEast-struct-stub}}. Mindmatrix 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

MEast is consistant with MEast-geo-stub and MEast-stub... perhaps we should think about renaming them? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Corporation stubs

The vast majority of subcategories in Category:Companies use the wording "Foo companies". However, the top-level category for stubs about companies is Category:Corporation stubs, and the vast majority of its sub-categories use the wording "Foo corporation stubs", with none using "Foo company stubs". Their needs to be consistency in wording. As per types of companies, all corporations are companies, but not all companies are corporations. I am proposing that all stubs containing "corp" in their name and their parent-categories be renamed to use a wording based on the word "company". Kurieeto 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Italian musical stubs

Proposed stub: {{Italy-band-stub}} Proposed stub: {{Italy-singer-stub}} I propose two stubs to identify Italian musical artists, in the same vein as several other countries. Examples of existing articles that should be tagged as {{Italy-singer-stub}} or {{Italy-band-stub}}include:

Additionally, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of dead-links to artists and singers in Music of Italy, Italian folk music, Italian popular music, Culture of Italy, etc. for which properly categorized stub articles could be created with some hope that a knowlegeable soul could expand them. Vineviz 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Support {{Italy-band-stub}}. At last count (November 2005) I found about 50 Italian bands in {{band-stub}}, so it's probably up to 60 now. --Bruce1ee 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Political scientist stubs

If there are these ...

 People by occupation
   Academic biography stubs 
     Economist stubs 
     Historian stubs 
     Linguist stubs 
     Pedagogue stubs
     Philosopher stubs
     Psychologist stubs
     Sociologist stubs 
     Theologian stubs 
     American academic biography stubs

(See Stub_types#People_by_occupation)

... then why not ...

     Political scientist stubs

AWhiteC 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Note we're adding new proposals at the top now. Assuming that's not just a rhetorical question, it sounds sensible enough on the face of it. But do you have any idea how many there are in the parent category? i.e., are there 60-ish or more? Alai 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that these stubs are under {{poli-bio-stub}} now. Conscious 11:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Around 1200 in {{Academic-bio-stub}}! {{poli-bio-stub}} is for political biography stubs. I feel like going ahead. I wouldn't be qualified to separate out the political scientist bios from academic bios however.
Um... sorry to break in here, but if you look a little further down this page you'll see that {{polisci-bio-stub}} was proposed and created last week! Grutness...wha? 12:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yeah... Unlisted, mind you, malformed (categorywise), and hence most of the articles not in the corresponding category. (Soifixedit.) Alai 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Or nearly, at least. Category should be Cat:Political scientist stubs right, not Cat:Political scientists stubs? Alai 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well spotted - yes, the name is wrong and it does ned a bit of a fix-up... looks from the conversation further down the page as if it was made and then proposed rather than the correct way of doing things. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Proposals, January 2006

[edit]

A stub of Canadian journalists. It would be a child of {{journalist-stub}} and {{canada-bio-stub}}. --YUL89YYZ 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a certain logic to that, parent cat is over-sized. (OTOH, properly sorting out the US-journos, and creating a stub-type for the UKs might be more urgent tasks...) Any idea of likely population? Alai 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am actually trying to get the Canada-bio-stub smaller. Here's the stats:
- Category:Canadian journalists has 179 articles
  - Category:Canadian columnists has 74 articles
  - Category:Canadian film critics has 6 articles
  - Category:Canadian newspaper editors has 4 articles
  - Category:Canadian television journalists has 76 articles
- Total is 339. Assuming 30% are stubs = 101.7 stubs --YUL89YYZ 01:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

- Ah, a very good point, and an even more urgent and laudable goal. I'm wary of the 30% as any sort of rule of thumb, but looking in those I see numerous articles of borderline length not marked as stubs, plus there will be any number with no perm-cat, and google seems to indicate there's more likely somewhat approximating to 400 (though that's likely very false-pos rich). Good enough for me to support, certainly. Don't forget there's doubtless many lurking around with {{canada-writer-stub}}. Alai 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

There is no stub category for articles on topology. The closest is {{geometry-stub}}, which doesn't really fit. I'm not sure if it should be a subtype of Category:Geometry stubs, or just of Category:Mathematics stubs (I'd lean towards the second). --Trovatore 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

this is probably going to confuse the vote, but I was about to add that there is no {{topography-stub}} either - which would be useful and reduce the weight on {{geo-term-stub}}. Trouble is, would these two stub types be too similarly named? Would there be confusion? Grutness...wha? 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that should cause confusion, any more than having topology and topography articles causes confusion. --Trovatore 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Both stubs look useful, and anyone who knows the meaning of the words would be unlikely to confuse them. Oh, and topology should not be a subtype of geometry. They should be separate (though it could be argued that geometry is a subtype of topology, I suppose). --EncycloPetey 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have a notion as to likely population? Parent could indeed do with being split, but what're the threshold-crossing potential subcategories?

I don't know, exactly, but I think it should be substantial (for topology; I have no clue about topography). But even if it were relatively small, the problem is that there's currently no good choice for these stubs — geometry-stub isn't right at all, and {{math-stub}} is huge. It's not an easy question to answer because Category:Topology has 17 subcats, and many of them have further subcats upon their backs to bite 'em. --Trovatore 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you give me some idea what substantial vs. relatively small is here? If it's significantly less than sixty articles, it's not worthwhile, regardless of the well-definedness of the category, and a better approach would be to reduce the clutter in math-stub by factoring out sub-topics that would be viable. Alai 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That strikes me as an overly rigid approach. In my view the stub category ought to be there for future articles, even if there aren't sixty currently, simply because topology is a discipline with a large footprint and no obvious supercat to put stuff in instead. (There well could be sixty; I'd have to go through Category:Geometry stubs and figure out which ones are topology, then descend through the tree from Category:Topology and figure out which ones are stubs; not a task I'm excited about.) --Trovatore 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's "underly rigid"; the vagueness of our own guidelines means that about every third proposal here seems to demand special pleading of this or some other sort. Future use is a bad criterion, as it's completely hypothetical, and could easily lead to very small categories existing as such for a long time, and being in a "backwater category" may very well make them less likely to be expanded in future, by removing them from the "mainstream" of a more-frequently-visited category. Doubtless the task in question is actually worse than that, as I assume the topology stubs aren't currently consistently all sorted under geometry; I'd think several will be lurking under "maths". However, if you have no idea how many there are, pity us non-experts -- I've looked at a handful of "looks somewhat like a topological topic from the title" articles, and in most cases found myself fighting the urge to slap a {{context}} tag on them, as they don't really make their notional sub-field at all clear. If there's not a reasonable number, and they're predominantly currently sorted under geometry, then I'd favour rescoping that category to "Geometry and topology". (Though admittedly it's not itself tiny.) Alai 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think probably most of them are not listed as {{geometry-stub}}, because it's not a very natural thing to think of when you're adding a stub notice. On the other hand the tree descending from Category:Topology is huge, though I'll grant that there doesn't seem to be a very high proportion of stubs in them from what I've seen. But I don't agree with the objection in any case; it's obvious from the large number of articles that there are editors working on topology articles, so the stub category would hardly be likely to be a backwater. I just don't see the harm in adding the stub cat, and think the "sixty" rule doesn't make that much sense. --Trovatore 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless topologists are truly exceptional in their reluctance to create stubs, and/or their zeal in expanding them, there isn't likely to be a huge disjunct between the activity in the area as a whole, and the numbers of stubs. And if there's very few stubs, then almost necessarily they'll be a little-visited category as that's the most usual mechanism for people finding them, unless there's a wikiproject or other separately-maintained list. Last thing we need IMO is another "well-defined and harmless" type like {{cattheory-stub}}. Many of the stubs probably don't have permanent categories at all, so navigating from there may not be the most efficient way of finding them; certainly the ones that had me scratching my head didn't (just might have been a sufficient clue had they had such). Alai 06:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So how did you find them, then? --Trovatore 06:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, by poking around in the maths and geometry stub categories, and clicking on a few "looks somewhat like a topological topic from the title" cases. By this extremely crude measure there would appear to be on the order of 95 articles in the maths-stub cat with some connection to (or at least, mention of) topology, which is pretty promising. This could be an underestimate due to google-lag, an overestimate due to false hits, or almost certainly, a combination of the two, but it's a start. Alai 06:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good idea. Here's my take on the first ten:

Join (topology) - belongs in new stub cat
Fork (topology) - belongs in new stub cat
Čech cohomology - it's certainly topology; not sure it's a stub. Call it 0.2 .
Evolutionary graph theory - not sure it's really topology, or that it even makes sense. Say 0.2 again.
Uniformizable - belongs in the new stub cat
Polish space - belongs in new stub cat (but could maybe have stub notice removed; could also go in mathlogic-stub) 0.5
Positive set theory - not sure it's a stub; connection to topology is tenous. 0.1 .
Algorithmic topology - belongs in new stub cat
Real representation - not sure it's a stub; if it is it'd probably be in more than one stub cat. 0.1 .
Continuum (mathematics) - Probably belongs in more than one stub cat. Shorter than the other not-sures but still a bit long for a stub. 0.4 .

That makes four pretty definites, plus an expectation of 1.5 more on the borderlines; comes to about 50 extrapolated. But there's the Google lag, and there are articles that aren't marked stubs but should be, so I think 60 seems pretty reasonable. Can we go ahead, then? --Trovatore 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, do wait until (in and around...) the seventh as per the (not quite...) "mandatory waiting period". (Images of crime passionelle stub-on-stub violence there.) Just in case anyone else has huge objections/some naming convention issue I haven't thought of/a yet more cunning counter-proposal/other. But I'm happy enough, now including on the size issue. Alai 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template and category duly created. Assistance solicited in classification of existing articles. --Trovatore 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

{{RC-stub}} split

More suggestions for splitting up {{RC-stub}}:

{{RC-order-stub}} for Catholic Orders

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs and Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies.

{{RC-society-stub}} for Catholic interaction with society

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs and Category:Roman Catholicism in the world and Category:Church stubs.

{{RC-dioc-org}} for dioceses and bishoprics

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs and Category:Roman Catholic Church organisation.

JASpencer 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Any notion of potential populations of each? The residual parent is not huge, <600 stubs now. I'd have guessed the biggest slice of the remainder might have been of (physical) churches. Not that RC-church-stub wouldn't be inviting terminological confusion. Not thrilled that those seem to arrive "pre-created", btw. Alai 19:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The physical churches seem to be in clusters, particularly around C (Catholic church of...; Church of ...; Cathedral of ..;) so they look far larger on the first page than they are on the second two pages. We'd be looking at 100-150 in the category, before it gets seperated further.

If you can suggest a better title please do. I did think of RC-build-stub, but thought that was a bit obscure.

Rough estimates on the other stubs - orders probably 30-50, society 70-100, dioceses 40-60.

Sorry about the pre-creation, they were meant to keep empty. I thought I was helping. 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, sorry to be grumpy; just had some trouble with "facts on the ground"-inspired editors taking off with such things. I'd be entirely in favour of RC-church-stub (see comments on the name in earlier section; I wouldn't suggest re-splitting, no) and of RC-society. As that'd reduce the parent to very manageable proportions, on balance I'd be somewhat against the smaller ones, until such time as they're rather larger. Alai 07:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 61 stubs that are RC dioceses, about a sixth of the size of the overall category - and it will get larger. JASpencer 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, then. But maybe at {{RC-diocese-stub}}, with a redirect from the shorter name. Alai 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

I've brought this up on January 7th, in a discussion about restructuring Cat:Food and drink stubs, but I would like to bring it up again. As far as I know, there are enough articles about drink-related corporations for a separate stub category. The stub would ease the load on {{food-stub}}, {{drink-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}, and could act as a parent for Cat:Beer and brewery stubs. I'll create a new subpage of my user page for the tally asap. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Category:Food and drink stubs is overpopulated with 6 pages of content. Category:Brand name products stubs also contains many articles, with 3 pages of content. To help alleviate this I'm proposing a stub for brand name food products, such as 100% Bran made by Post Cereals, and Filet-O-Fish made by McDonald's. This new stub would be a child of both Category:Food and drink stubs and Category:Brand name products stubs. A list of articles where this stub would be appropriate is below:

--Kurieeto 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The name should probably be {{food-product-stub}}. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've renamed the proposed stub. Kurieeto 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objections after a week, I'm going to create the stub. Kurieeto 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

{{WoD-stub}} and {{GURPS-stub}}

Category:RPG stubs is over 200 articles long. 20+ of those are World of Darkness-specific and 21 are GURPS-specific. Both those categories have someone on WP:RPG who's likely to make more stubs. Percy Snoodle 11:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Support. Both WoD and GURPS will likely recieve more stubs with the newly started WikiProject for role-playing games, as Percy says. It would also be good for people intersted in those two game systems to have their stubs collected separately. Jonas Karlsson 14:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. Jup, it definitely would help. And I'm eager to make more stubs ;-) -- Genesis 17:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm firmly against this, on size grounds. See definition of a "good number" of stubs for a new category, at top-of-page. Be happy to support after these pass threshold, or if wider scope is chosen (if White Wolf stubs or SJG stubs would be significantly larger, say). 200+ stubs is nothing like a "necessary to split somehow" size for the parent. Alai 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The "good number" for stubs with a wikiproject is listed as 30, "though this figure may vary from case to case", so we're not very far off (and the number of WoD-stubs is already increasing). I'd argue against White Wolf or SJG stubs, at least as part of this proposal, since that would'nt help out rpg-stubs. Percy Snoodle 13:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There are wikiprojects here? I can't one for either of these above. I do hope you're not about to deploy the "WPJ RPG can be foster-parent to as many under-sized stub types as it likes" argument; by that argument, everything has a wikiproject. Some of us objected to the weakness of the "though this figure" wording specifically on the "but everyone'll say that" grounds. Alai 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not keen from the point of view of the numbers (20/21 is far too few). And I'm not that happy with the names, either. (WoD-stub? Wod's that?) Grutness...wha? 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (whose favourite movie is Wings of Desire).

It has been suggested that {{WoD-stub}} should be a redirect to {{World of Darkness-stub}} and, similarly, that {{D&D-stub}} should become a redirect to {{Dungeons and Dragons-stub}}, which is something I'd support. If Wings of Desire stubs are ever needed we can disambiguate. Percy Snoodle 13:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

With what, a stub-disambiguation template? Anyhoo, what name it shouldn't be created at is a secondary point. Alai 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is not that there would ever be a wings of desire stub (highly unlikely), just that - to most people, WoD is a meaningless term. If there is to be such a stub (highly debatable), then WorldofDarkness-stub would be a far better name for it, and WoD-stub should not be used. But, as I said, that's a highly debatable if. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. 3 to 2 - I guess I'll take that as "not right now, but not never". At the rate WoD-stubs are growing, it may not be long before they're proposed again. Percy Snoodle 18:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Or alternatively, what about a genre-based split? Horror-rpg-stub, sf-rpg-stub, etc. Those are likely to be more viable, sooner. Alai 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

A second suggestion for splitting up {{RC-stub}} is by splitting out the churches.

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs, Category:Roman Catholic churches and Category:Church stubs.

JASpencer 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great minds thing alike, I missed this one initially. I'd guess there are at least 60 of these, can you confirm? But please, this is the "proposals" page, not the "I have already created page". Naming conventions would seem to indicidate this should not be pluralised, i.e. should be at "RC-church-stub". Alai 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Cameroon-geo-stub

Cameroon has just passed the 50 stub mark, so I think it's time for {{Cameroon-geo-stub}}. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 12:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

weve been using 65 stubs for geo-stub splits. there are a dozen countries past the 50 stub mark that havent been split yet. have a look at grutness's stub splitting page. central african republic would be next in line with 63. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: read the page better next time. I believed that the bold ones had already been created. Anyway, there are way more than 15 Cameroon-geo-stubs waiting to be created (no Division seems to have an article yet), so that should keep me busy for now. I'll start writing them asap. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 11:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just make it already, I needed a {{Cameroon-geo-stub}} tag the other day. Kappa 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- so why didnt you use AfricaW-geo-stub? this ones actually probably close enough, tho we might not have grutness's lists to go on when its split. lates news from his is that hes had a majopr hard disc crash and might have lost all his data - geo-stub lists, finances, website updates, diary, music, art, the lot :( BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  - yeah, I suppose it's probably close enough. If we did lower the threshold to 50 we'd have a whole bundle more countries we could split off (which would please those who think that every country should have its own stub). We could also finish the last two Canadian provinces/territories. Oh, and yes, sadly BL is right - chances are I may have lost some 36 gig of records and files - including the geo-stub tallying lists :(. The techs are working on it, and I'm on a loaned machine. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Why didn't I used AfricaW-geo-stub? Well I did, but it took half-a-dozen page loads to find out that was the right stub type. Kappa 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Not sure why it should - it's listed at the top of Cat:Geography stubs, which hardly takes half a dozen page loads. In any case, that's not really the point. The main thing is that a perfectly usable category exists for Cameroon geography stubs at the moment, so there's no real hurry in making a separate category for them. It probably will be split fairly soon, since Cameroon is getting close to the threshold for a split, but it's hardly as urgent as it sounded from your original comment. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Proposing this as a substub to {{Australia-stub}}, intended to identify Indigenous Australian-related articles on peoples, individuals, places, organisations, concepts, events, etc. A quick browse through the AU stub category identifies easily 30-40 candidates, and there are plenty more as yet unidentified within the AU-bio and other stubs. Also, as per List of Indigenous Australian group names, there are 100's of articles on individual peoples awaiting to be started. Any objections?--cjllw | TALK 08:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

that would be australia-ethno-stub wouldnt it? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the intention of my proposal is to specifically highlight stubs related to AU indigenous peoples and issues for further expansion and improvement; an 'australia-ethno-stub' while no doubt valid in its own right ought most probably include other, non-indigenous ethnicities as well. So I'm still inclined towards the originally-proposed template name.--cjllw | TALK 05:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Australia-ethno-stub}} would fit better with the naming system we have in place - it would be a child template to ethno-stub, which is also why things like Canada-ethno-stub have been proposed. It would be more all-encompassing, that is true, but it's likely that almost all articles would still be on indigenous culture in Australia. So there may be one or two articles on Croatian festivals in Melbourne, but the vast majority would be on the dreamtime, corroborees, and bunyips. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- ok, I appreciate the value of consistency. However, even though it's quite likely that the majority of ethno-stubs in this context would indeed relate to Indigenous Australians, I'm not sure that this would completely address the proposal. Apart from articles on indigenous peoples themselves which naturally-enough would fall under an ethno-stub classification, could the ethno-stub be used as well for stubs on indigenous organisations, communities, belief systems, historical events, notable individuals, legislation & land rights, etc etc? Within {{Australia-stub}} there are examples from each of these, which could be drawn together for attention under {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}} more readily than {tl|Australia-ethno-stub}} - or are ethno-stubs typically assigned much more broadly in such a way that these other areas (whose connection consists in their relevance to or involvement of indigenous australia) can be accommodated as well?--cjllw | TALK 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes they would. Consider the examples I gave before. Cultural events like corroborees would qualify. Myths such as bunyips would qualify. Similarly, historical events, aboriginal rights activists, legislation etc would all qualify. Several of those would be double-stubbed with, say Australia-bio-stub, Australia-law-stub, etc, but there's nothing to stop any of them being tagged with Australia-ethno-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, if {{Australia-ethno-stub}} could be used for the variety of indigenousAU-related topics as per above, then I don't really mind the stub's name. What would the corresponding category be: Cat:Ethnic groups in Australia stubs?--cjllw | TALK 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Hm. Actually, looking at things again, it depends whether you want this for the ethnic groups themselves or things connected with the groups, since I've now remembered that all the ethno-stubs were recently split into ethno-group-stub (Ethnic groups) and ethno-stub (Ethnicity - the culture, history, etc). Perhaps two separate stubs are neded - Australia-ethno-stub (Australian ethnicity stubs) and Australia-ethno-group-stub (Ethnic groups in Australia stubs)... Grutness...wha? 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Upon reflection, I still tend to think that {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}} is preferential for the intended purpose to hand. For example, it appears that we have {{NorthAm-native-stub}} --->Cat:Indigenous peoples of North America stubs, which already has >100 entries and would be a parallel to this proposal. {{Australia-ethno-stub}} would of course also be a valid stub, but at present I'm not sure there are enough candidates for this- haven't really looked into it though. In general, and ideally, I'd like to eventually see a stub structure to mirror the subcategorisation of Cat:Indigenous peoples — indigenous community status and identity have specific meanings which lend themselves to collective treatment, and are not as broad as a general ethno-stub coverage (ie not all ethnic groups are indigenous in the modern, specific sense). So I'd like to maintain the proposal, ie to have {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}} ---> Cat:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs.--cjllw | TALK 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

My suggestion is to split this category from {{politics-stub}} and even {{politician-stub}}. Today, bios and other articles relating specifically to political science are generally placed in these more generic categories. I would also suggest {{polisci-bio-stub}} as a subcategory of both {{academic-bio-stub}} and the new {{polisci-stub}}. I have created a suggested format for this stub, just to see if I could do it. If it's not good enough, please remove.

--Thorsen 11:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

My suggestion is to split up {{RC-stub}} firstly by taking out the most numerous area - people.

It would be a sub category of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs, Category:Roman Catholics and Category:Christian biography stubs.

It could also take over Category:Roman Catholic clergy stubs

JASpencer 17:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I note this is created (rather early) and seems to be somewhat under-sized (though not vexaciously so). But let's not get carried away with over-splitting. Alai 19:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

There are many New York State Highway articles with Template:US-road-stub, and I think it's time to put them in their own stub category. --Kuroki Mio 2006 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

if we do it should be at {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} for consistancy. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 08:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If we do it, it should be at {{NewYork-state-highway-stub}}, for consistency with the majority of the permanents, and compliance with the naming conventions. Alai 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ok. i have trouble keeping up with all the highway changes in the last few months :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How about no. They are known as "New York State Highways." This is why the stub temp[lates atre located at the capitalized versions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is your only evidence for the correctness of this usage, I'd be inclined to point out who instigated the majority of these stub types, has successfully campaigned to reaching any consensus to rename them, etc. Alai 04:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Only? What have I been saying for months? Talk:List of California State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm painfully aware you've been saying it for months. Same objection on self-referentiality and lack of verifiable evidence stands. Alai 04:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And it's not just me here. Why would capitalized State Highway stubs harm Wikipedia? As long as noone else contests the capitalization of course. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the permanent category in this instance: Cat:New York state highways Alai 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Which we've tried to fix except for CFD botching things. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If by "botch" you mean, "fail to achieve a consensus of people voting against established naming conventions", then I suppose so. However, the permanent category is where it is, that name does follow the conventions, and this stub type should firstly, follow the conventions too, and secondly, agree with the permanent category, as per (more or less...) consistent practice. Alai 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But then why are all the other state highway stubs capitalized (except Washington)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder who proposed and created a large number of them, with that capitalisation? I'm not sure what your point is here: that we be consistent in our inconsistency, or something along those lines? As opposed to, with the things the inconsistent things are supposed to be consistent with in the first place? (Don't ask me to say that three times fast.) The unfortunate thing is, while this continues to only attract sporadic trickles of interest, an actual manifest consensus doesn't seem imminent. Alai 04:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't create all of them. I didn't create AZ, CACR, KY, TX, MO. And none of them were originally at the -State-Highway-stub standard. Remember when they were at State Highway Stub? Now it all conforms to the stub naming conventions. And I didn't do the moving to the current names either. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I merely said a "large number". Yes, I recall that vividly, even getting that much fixed was like drawing teeth (or maybe more like, having teeth drawn). I'm not for a moment suggesting you've done anything amiss process-wise -- as far as I know you've adhered to that impeccably -- I'm just pointing out that the names you chose for these stubs types is not very strong evidence, in and of itself, that these are the correct names for other stub types in the same class. I agree they now conform to the NCs specific to stubs, but stub categories are also supposed to follow the general criteria for categories as a whole, and that they do not. Anyhoo, I shall (endeavour to) shut up here, this is just going to further duplicate and fragment numerous variations on similar themes on other pages. Alai 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually... I looked back and this stub was already approved. It's at Archive15. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, I did wonder about that, at least under some permutation or combination. So hurry up and create it so I can propose it for deletion. :) Ideally we should have a holding area for approved proposals (I must really be slacking, some of mine have 'gone off the screen', too); ostensibly there's a section on WP:WSS/T for this. Alai 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Routboxny, which I created as a copy of TxRouteBox because it looked like most of the others, except for Routeboxwa which includes a map; I'm not too happy personally with the prev/next concept as this is non-programmable - OR if it is programmable, how would this be accomplished? Otherwise, next and prev are prone to errors IMHO. What is gained by this instead of users going thru the referenced category page? In general shouldn't we just have a standard RouteBoxState and not a template for each state? Comments? [If there is another forum for this dicussion, please let me know.] --Censorwolf 17:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are parameters to the template, so you have to "fill those in" in each inclusion. Certainly programmable, but certainly not at all automatic. Why not just get rid of those if you don't want them? This doesn't seem to relate to stub-types even tangentially, though: perhaps the talk page of the original template, the US roads wikiproject or similar? Alai 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it seemed relevent. As a professional web developer/programmer I understand the parameter concept of these templates, I was wondering if there was something programatical in wiki I didn't know about that could be used. Thanks for the info. --Censorwolf 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't (and sorry, still isn't) clear what you mean(t) by "programatical", regarding the use of these. If you mean, a means of automatically calculating what the "previous" and "next" members of an arbitrary category are, then so far as I know, no; and if no means of doing so is explicit in any similar usages of such templates is concerned, then I'd go so far as to assume it's not reasonably feasible. Glad to help (if I've helped). Alai 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that "NewYork..." is the stub name instead of "New-York..." for some reason. Oh well, I guess I'll have to change my driverslicense and my homeaddress ;-) ~~Meanwhile New Hampshire is "New-Hampshire..." (ok), but West Virginia is "WestVirgina..." (nicht!). I LOVE the consistency here.~~ (Nevermind NH and WV - I didn't see the redirection on NH) --Censorwolf 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Split of {{architecture-stub}} needs a name

A month ago, I proposed some additional children of {{art-stub}} and {{artist-stub}}. As part of that discussion, Grutness recommended a split of {{architecture-stub}}. The relevent discussion is provided below:

Relocate {{architecture-stub}} under {{art-stub}}. Architects...are considered artists already, so the discipline should be there too.

...architecture stub is more of a problem. Currently it deals with architectural features and types of building, so should perhaps be split into two separate stubs. It...should be under struct-stub, and any split would leave the building types still under struct-stub. Building features could use both struct and art as parents. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

But as I understand it {{struct-stub}} is for stubbing specific structures, not general architectural styles and sturctural motifs. One reason I recommend placing it under {{art-stub}} is that the Dewey Decimal system for libraries places architecture as a subcategory of art, so it's a place people would know to look. A cross-reference under {{struct-stub}} makes sense, though. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the same situation as geo-stub and geo-term stub. Geo-stub is for individual places, geo-term-stub is for things like terminal moraine or till plain. And Cat:Geographical term stubs is a subcategory of Cat:Geography stubs. In the same way, struct-stub is about individual buildings, architecture-stub contains building types like shed and bandstand, and that's why Cat:Architecture stubs is a subcategory of Cat:Buildings and structures stubs. If architecture-stub was split in two, putting building types in one category and building features and general arcitectural terms (from alcove to window shutter) in another, then one could go under structs and the other under art quite happily. And since there are nearly 600 architecture-stubs, a split's not that bad an idea... Grutness...wha? 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The question remains: What should the new stub be called? and on a related note, which half of the split should remain in {{architecture-stub}}? --EncycloPetey 04:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

perhaps neither should keep that name. Perhaps it should be {{Struct-type-stub}} and {{Architecture-term-stub}}, or similar - keep the category to hold both (and architect stubs) but get rid of the original template. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Open Encyclopedia

Contents

Proposing new stubs - procedure

Proposals, February 2006

Miscellaneous stub

Educational computer or video game stub

New Jersey Road stub

Comet Stub

Insurance Stub

US Congressman Stub

Puerto Rican Bio Stub

More geo- and struct-stubs

Corporation stubs

Italian musical stubs

Political scientist stubs

Proposals, January 2006

{{canada-journalist-stub}}

{{topology-stub}}

{{RC-stub}} split

{{drink-corp-stub}}

{{food-product-stub}}

{{WoD-stub}} and {{GURPS-stub}}

{{RC-churches-stub}}

Cameroon-geo-stub

{{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}

{{polisci-stub}}

{{RC-bio-stub}}

{{NY-State-Highway-stub}}

Split of {{architecture-stub}} needs a name