Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2006/July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2006
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 11:16, 20 July 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, July 2006

{{Warhammer-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 warhammer-fantasy-stub and feed into wargame-stub.

A Warhammer-40,000-stub already exists, but as all hobbyists know, there is a distinct difference. I propose the creation of a {{warhammer-stub}} or a {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}}. Arctic-Editor 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • StubSense lists only 42 stubs in Category:Warhammer Fantasy [1], 36 of which are already using the fairly-appropriate {{wargame-stub}} (wargame-stub is a parent of Warhammer-40,000-stub). Perhaps a rename/rescope of {{Warhammer-40,000-stub}} to {{Warhammer-stub}} (which would, of course, include Warhammer 40K) would work. Just my 2 cents, as I don't know much about Warhammer. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope existing type, per Amalas. This keeps coming up, to the same general conclusion, though perhaps the number of stubs is slooooowly increasing. I know there's a difference too, but not so great that both aren't describable as being in a "Warhammer" category. I'd not oppose an upmerged template {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} feeding into the renamed and rescoped Category:Warhammer stubs, which I'll tag for such. Alai 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to any change which merges Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy stubs. While the games are similar, my experience on Wikipedia (particularly as a participant in WikiProject Warhammer 40,000) is that there are few editors who have the required level of knowledge about both games. Merging the stub types will just make it harder for editors to find suitable articles to work on, with no real gain. Cheers --Pak21 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand the difference between Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy, but would a {{Warhammer-stub}} be acceptable to apply to both for now? Then later, you could split out the two into {{warhammer-40,000-stub}}} and {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} if Category:Warhammer stubs go too large. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or to be precise, those templates would be in any case distinct, even initially, and get separate categories when both are >= 60 (or when each has a wikiproject, indeed). Pak, the gain is that there's then a coherent stub type that covers the scope of the original the proposal, which would still be much less than one listing page, so not really any less usable for the 40Kers, without creating what would be an undersized WHF type. Alai 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem I have is that I don't see how a combined Fantasy and 40,000 stub type is going to help to improve any Warhammer 40,000 articles, and I can definitely see how it will make life more difficult, by mixing in articles I know nothing about with articles I do. Surely there must be a better solution to the problem that is facing the Fantasy editors than making life more difficult for 40,000 editors. Cheers --Pak21 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no gain for the (exclusively) 40K editors, certainly. Nor am I claiming the overlap in likely editors is necessarily large (I'm more than familiar with enthusiasts of the one expressing disinterest/contempt for the other (and I'm not speaking of wikipedia editors here)). However, I really don't see how it makes anything "more difficult" (much less life), it's a coherent scope for a category (being two series of games by the same company, with similar names, and overlapping content), and it has the benefit I've just described. If it were being proposed to add 30 articles into an existing stub type with 700, that would be a different matter, clearly, but < 200 articles is not in the realm of "we have any pressing need for two separate stub types for these related subjects". Alai 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are only marginally related wargames, right? Then why not create {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} and feed into Category:Wargame stubs until there are enough stubs for a new category?
    • Somewhat more than "marginally", but that's exactly what I propose, Usgnus. Alai 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must now admit I'm confused. What exactly is being proposed here? Cheers --Pak21 09:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly (by me, at least): a single Category:Warhammer stubs, fed by both the existing {{Warhammer-40,000-stub}} (not renaming this, per Amalas's original suggestion), and a new {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} (or perhaps that should be {{Warhammer-Fantasy-stub}} or {{WarhammerFantasy-stub}}, actually). Worst comes to the worst, you'd still be able to see the 40K-only stubs with what links here. Alai 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given there are ~80 40,000 stubs and ~120 wargame stubs, of which ~40 are Fantasy stubs (thus meaning there are ~80 non-Fantasy wargame stubs), I still don't quite see what the advantage is of merging the Fantasy stubs in with the 40,000 stubs: it will be just as hard for Fantasy editors to find them in a combined Warhammer stubs category as it is currently, and harder for 40,000 editors to find what they want. Why not just create {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} (or whatever you want to call it) feeding wargame stubs, and leave everything else unchanged? Apologies if I'm being more stupid than usual here... Cheers --Pak21 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. No need for the extra "warhammer" layer. Just create {{WarhammerFantasy-stub}} and feed it into Category:Wargame stubs. When there gets to be 65 or so stubs, create Category:Warhammer Fantasy stubs, a subcategory of "Wargame stubs". This way has no effect on the Warhammer 40,000 folks and helps the Warhammer Fantasy editors somewhat. --Usgnus 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Pak, the WarhammerFantasys are too small for a separate category at present. There is no separate category for them at the time being. If you don't see an advantage to them having a stub type (albeit shared), then fair enough, I've present such argument for it as there appears to me to be. Usgnus, what "extra layer"? I'm proposing a single stub category for both (with "upmerged" templates), not an additional stub type. Alai 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The "layer" is that Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 stubs are being commingled in the Warhammer category. I think we should mix the Warhammer fantasy stubs with the Wargames stubs instead of with the Warhammer 40,000 stubs. Have the Warhammer fantasy template feed Wargames and have the existing Warhammer 40,000 template feed the existing Warhammer 40,000 category. But that's just my compromise suggestion. --Usgnus 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have no objection to upmerging in that direction either (though I still don't get the "layers" argument, sorry). Note, however, that if there are any WHFRP stubs out there, that would be confusing (and indeed incorrect) in those cases. Alai 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's just me. A layer is the way I visualize it. I think of the stub templates as a layer. As for the issue at hand, if Pak21 is happy with your way, I have no objections. --Usgnus 00:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{whisky-stub}} / Category:Whisky 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 as revised by Usgnus (see the "tree").

I propose {{whisky-stub}}, as a daughter to Category:Drink stubs and a sister to {{tea-stub}}, {{coffee-stub}}, {{wine-stub}} and {{beer-stub}}. The main category could do with splitting at 645 articles. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"drink stubs" +whiskey -whisky" gives 38 hits, googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"drink stubs" -whisky +whiskey" gives 40 hits. Only a few hits, like Acquired taste and Half and half, do not fit this restubbing, but that still leaves us with well over 70 articles for the new stub category. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

                     drink-stub
                 alcoholic-drink-stub                              tea-stub     ...
distilled-drink-stub    wine-stub    beer-stub
--Usgnus 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I wasn't clear. My preference is to omit the alcoholic-drink category, but I illustrated your suggestion as something I can accept. --Usgnus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{ice-stub}} or similar

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 template, upmerge cat.

The recently started WikiProject Glaciers created a glacier-stub which is now on SFD, since we don't normally split by landform type. However, it got me thinking... Category:Geology stubs does need splitting, and there are probably a good number of stubs relating to glaciology, glaciation, and the ice ages there (definitely enough since there's a WikiProject - I'd estimate about 45-50). I'd like to suggest an {{ice-stub}} - preferably under a better name - to cover these topics. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Methodism-stub}}/Category:Methodism 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 template, upmerge cat.

There is a series of articles on Methodism, but yet no stub for Methodism per se. This is unfortunate, because, despite the current virtual integration of the fundamentalist churches in the US, there remain significant differences between the various churches. Also, I believe that members of this church would be much more likely to add to articles relating to their church if they wouldn't have to sift through all the Christian denomination stubs to find them. Badbilltucker 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken the liberty of hyphenating your suggested template name, per the stub naming guidelines. I'm a tad confused with the use of "fundamentalist" to be synonymous with "Methodist" -- they ain't. This would be a coherent enough stub type, if it also meets the size criteria: how many such stubs are there at present? Alai 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem I see is how broad should the scope be, given the intermixture of Methodism with the other strands of Protestantism. It would be helpful if there were a WikiProject Methodism to give some shape to the scope. As for "fundamentalist", while not arch-conservative (as a whole), Methodists still believe in the Bible as being divinely inspired rather than merely a nice collection of historical and philosophical writings, as some of the more ecumenical denominations do. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not all Methodists are fundamentalists, in any of the usual senses, and certainly by no means are all fundamentalists, Methodists. This may speak to the scoping point: I assumed the intent was, self-indentified Methodists, denoms with "Methodist" in their title, etc, rather than attempting a monophyletic sub-taxon of Protestantism. Alai 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My only intention in linking Methodism with fundamentalism in my original statement was to point out that while the so-called fundamentalist churches, which all adhere to the five fundamentals, may have recently been, to varying degrees, downplaying their real differences, those real differences do exist, and that it makes no sense to have them all grouped together into a non-denominational "Christianity." Also, the people and articles that I would include in this group would be primarily those who are clearly and undeniably linked to the Methodist faith, by virtue of being bishops, ministers, members of congregations, whatever. As for how many there might be now, I think that it would be rather difficult to point out a specific number, although I have no doubt that it is substantial. Also, I think that there would probably be much more interest in creating a Methodist WikiProject if Methodists were to see how much work there was to do in their own field. The same would probably hold for the other major Christian denominations, as well. Badbilltucker 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes much less sense to split them between "fundamentalist" and "non-fundamentalist" however, given how problematic that would be. On the new type as proposed (as I understand it, i.e. without reference to fundamentalism, but to self-described Methodism): if you can't confirm that this would meet the size guidelines, I'll have to oppose. Creating a stub type to encourage a wikiproject to create more stubs to justify the stub type is a little too circular (and uncertain) for my liking. Alai 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no intention of trying to encourage a project. However, I have on me a list of some 200 names and short biographical pieces of prominent Methodist clergy, most of whom are not so far as I can tell already mentioned, as well as some additional names from a Who's Who book. It was my intention to create the stub so that it could be used on these stubs. However, as it seems that the creation of a new stub type before the fact is unlinkely, I shall attempt to create the stubs and then call for a stub template later. Badbilltucker 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I suggest in that circumstance is that you create the template, only, feeding at present into the next likely parent (I assume, Category:Christianity stubs), to facilitate tagging these articles as they're identified and/or created. Once that hits around 60, a separate category should then be a formality. Alai 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Seismology-stub}} and Category:Seismology 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:Geology stubs has almost 1000 articles and is way too big. Category:Seismology has 75 stubs and is good enough for a stub category. --Sbluen 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


{{Markup-languages-stub}} and Category:Markup language 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.

This stub template would be for articles in Category:Markup languages. It would help to reduce the size of Category:Computer language stubs, which has about 700 articles. --Sbluen 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Category:Markup languages is the largest subcategory of Category:Computer languages that is not highly ambiguous or questionable. --Sbluen 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm neglecting Dr Phil's excellent advice on grammar, and failing to put verbs in my sentences. I meant to ask, what is the likely population? If it's >= 60, I'm in, as it is at least coherently scoped. Alai 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were asking if the stub category was likely to have population done by others. I looked on the stubsense page and saw {{Compu-stub}} used 36 times, {{Software-stub}} used 32 times, and {{Compu-lang-stub}} 31 times and a total of 142 stub articles. --Sbluen 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a little false-pos-prone, but if it helps at all with the compu-stubs and software-stubs, I say go for it, and hopefully it'll be at least thereabouts. Alai 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Festival-stub}} in need of splitting

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.

The number of stubs marked with festival-stub is well into four figures - it needs some form of split fairly soon. I haven't counted them up, but at a quick glance, it looks like the following would help to relieve the burden considerably:

Any thoughts or further possibilities are most welcome! Grutness...wha? 05:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Podcast-stub}} / Category:Podcasting 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 as revised by Pegship.

With the number of podcast stubs increasing I feel it would be useful to have a Podcasting stub. A Wikipedia search for podcasts shows many results. PodShow.com contains many examples of encyclopedia worthy podcasts. Several include: The Random Show, Geek Brief TV, Daily Source Code, Pacific Coast Hellway, Tikibar, This Week In Tech, 7th Son, Scott Sigler (Podcast novel writer), Yeast Radio, and Rocketboom. Many of these articles need attention and therefore a {{Podcast-stub}}. Djsteen 23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was created before, and deleted in February, so I'd like strong evidence of numerical viability (and ideally, some evidence of it actually being needed). Likewise, we've had unproposed stub types for blogs, and even for "vlogs", that have seen very little actual use. Can we at least squish them all together to make one good(ish) one? Alai 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is what the {{Internet-stub}} is for. Djsteen 08:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out this seems to be a little more populous than I'd have guessed: StubSense finds 47. I'd still prefer a slight upscope, if this can be done in a coherent manner, merging with the existing (though pending deletion for being too small) {{blog-stub}}. Is there a recognised umbrella term for blogging, videoblogging and podcasting? Alai 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about {{internet-bcast-stub}}, or {{internet-publish-stub}}? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds plausible to me, if a little hard to bound precisely. Alai 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A serach of Wikipedia for "podcaster" and "stub" gives me 431 hits. That seems like plenty for it's own stub tag. I'm trying to get to this Stubsense to check those results. However, I am unable to find a link to the actual program. A Wikipeida search for stubsense comes up with no artitcles, and Google gives me thousands of talk pages with "Stubsense says ..." or "Stubsense shows..." so I can't figure out how to get to it. Ultimate ed 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Television biography stub split

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.

There may be some overlap between some of these, obviously. Alai 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides the usual UK/British and US/American rant, there's the fact that Television personalities is a subcat of Television presenters, so unless you factored that already into the above, I see no reason to have both. I'm not sanguine about splitting actors by medium as it has led to a good deal of double stubbing with film and TV to date, enough that I think screen actors would probably be a better cat there, and the same with the writers. On the other hand, TV and radio have a good deal of overlap in the journalist category, altho moreso over in the UK than the US, since they still have a significant amount of radio journalism thanks to the BBC. Anyway, despite the likely heavy double stubbing, given that it follows what the perm cats are doing, support Category:Television writer stubs, Category:Television producer stubs, Category:Television journalist stubs, and Category:Television actor stubs. Defer the four others for now and bug WP:TV to decide whether they want presenters, personalities, or both and what the difference is supposed to be. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those counts are totals, so the personalities would be subtracted from the presenters if both were created, though on the face of it both would appear to be separately viable, the latter to the tune of 147. Bear in mind that these are all already tagged as particular to TV, so there's no issue of additional stubbing at least in these cases (future use I can hardly legislate for). I've no objection to a screen actor combined category; my earlier suggestion for the large US overlap is tantamount to the same thing, but I think separate categories in addition are still useful. Alai 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

English football internationals

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 position.

I'm drawing thin on this one as far as the perm-cats are concerned. Further bright ideas welcome. Alai 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to do what we've done with other sports -
And have these irrespective of whether the players have played internatonally. At least there should be permanent cats for these. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the subcats of Category:Football (soccer) players by position. Doing a count by those, I get:
Which really just proves they're very undercategorised... There would also be a certain logic to parent types by position, too. Alai 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of stubs we have, this looks like severe undercategorisation. What's more, since you'd logically expect several defenders, midfieldes and strikers per goalkeeper, if you have 32 goalies the rest should all romp past the threshold. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with these, and also create the non-stub parent categories at the same time. However to match Category:English footballers and Category:English football biography stubs The cats should use English and not England. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was carelessly generalising from the international cats, and/or from G's suggestion. Updated. Alai 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whoops. good point. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems like these were sadly neglected, and the category is way out of control, I'm going to go ahead and make these by position, since that seems to be what people agreed on. --fuzzy510 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Sf-char-stub}}/Category:Science-fiction character 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.

There are few hundreds sf-stubs and over a thousand fictonal character stubs. A child category for both seems only logical.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Fict-stub}}/Category:Fiction 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.

While category Category:Fiction is not to big, I recently stumbled upon quite a few articles which are stubs but don't necessarily fall under {{Fict-char-stub}}, {{{fict-location-stub}} and {{sf-stub}}. Not to mention that the first two need a parent category for ease of sorting (are there any other fict-stubs I missed? Consider ficitonal vehicles, items, timelines and other such items. Many of them are not tagged as stubs, so Stub Sense is not best to use here, but the reachness of sf-stub category suggest that its parent category would surely not be wasted, especially as most of literary genres are missing their own stubs at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:Medicine stubs split

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 seems to be undersorting to some existing categories in this case too (I had a look for blue-links this time). Alai 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for stub types here. It'd be important to cooperate. For example we have neuroscience-stub, why would we need neurology-stub? We have anatomy-stub and zoology-stub. Why do we need human or animal anatomy-stub? Anyway good ideas. :) NCurse work 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The neuro- one may indeed be duplicative, or substantially overlapping. However, the existing anatomy stub type I'm well aware of, which is why I didn't include the 5 or 6 hundred articles that are in or under the Category:Anatomy category, and currently tagged as med-stub. (Said categorisation may or may not be indicative of primary notability, of course.) Not to mention the small detail that that type is itself significantly oversized, so a split into human and animal anatomy, as with the perm-cats, seems a pretty basic step forward. At any rate, at eight pages, several hundred articles ought to be hauled out of there one way or another. Alai 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will be an enormous job, but I start to create them. Any help is welcomed. :) NCurse work 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sure I follow all the objections above, but at least some progress is being made. You may be correct about coming of these being duplicative, but at any rate they may be evidence of significant undersorting to those types. And if we're not to split along the lines of the permanent categories, then how? Note that it's still seven listing pages, so a long way to go. At any rates, I further suggest:
  • Category:Medical treatment stubs 117

You'd think that'd be larger, but what do I know... Alai 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Māori-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.

For Māori customs, issues, and people. I found 65 such stubs without much trouble, 34 from {{NZ-stub}} and the rest from browsing Category:Māori. -- Avenue 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to bias on this one, but there probably are enough... But I'd suggest using the form without the macron ({{Maori-stub}}), simply because we usually avoid accents and diacriticals in stub templates (not all keyboards are set up to use them easily). It might even be better to make it {{NZ-ethno-stub}} (although New Zealand is a special case given its lack of pre-European diversity), to avoid any potential edit-warring re: Moriori articles. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I saw an article related to the Maori earlier today and I think I marked it as {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}, which is presumably incorrect now that I think about it. StubSense reports 68 stubs. [6] Support {{NZ-ethno-stub}} ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually what prompted me to suggest this. :) I still prefer {{Maori-stub}} because of its tighter focus, similar to {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}. Admittedly the Moriori are an issue, although probably a pretty minor one. But I'd accept {{NZ-ethno-stub}} if that's what others prefer. -- Avenue 12:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd be inclined to go with NZ-ethno- as the most general, and conforming to the established pattern, but add redirects from both the other orthographies. Alai 03:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Powerplant-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.

StubSense reports 70 in {{US-struct-stub}} alone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


{{Castle-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.

While 18 of the StubSense findings overlap with {{Fort-stub}}, I think Castle-stub can be a good subcat of Fort-stub (not all forts are castles, but all castles are forts). Note that we have {{England-castle-stub}}, {{Scotland-castle-stub}} and {{Wales-castle-stub}}, and that stub sence found 37 hits in {{Euro-struct-stub}}, and about 60 total in Japan, France, UK, Poland and MEeast-struct stubs alone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's a certain inevitable logic to this, give the existing sub-types. (BTW, not all castles are really fortifications, many are post-med ostentation that wouldn't withstand a half-dozen cheesed-off peasant, but close enough for categorisation purposes, I suppose.) Alai 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Monument-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.

With redirect from {{Memorial-stub}}. I just discovered stubscan and started using it on some categories which I thought would deserve stub. Full (4k) scan of Category:Monuments and memorials revelas 86 articles in {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}}, 39 in {{Archaeology-stub}}, 26 in {{Protected-area-stub}} and dozens of others. Some are not structures, I think we easily have more then 60.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{diplomacy-stub}} / Category:Diplomacy stubs and {{diplomat-stub}} / Category:Diplomat 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.

Despite the Category:Diplomacy, articles on diplomacy are spread out across Wikipedia. The stubs are accordingly disparate, falling into Category:Government stubs, Category:Politics stubs, Category:Military stubs, Category:International organization stubs, etc. In addition, there are dozens of stubs that aren't listed as such, since there isn't an appropriate category.

Into the new Category:Diplomacy stubs would go (amongst others) dozens of pieces of terminology (from eDiplomat); 43 articles on New Zealand's missions abroad; and a great many on embassies, 'Foreign relations of Foo', etc.
Into the new Category:Diplomat stubs (which would be a subcategory of the above), would fall most of the 508 stubs identified by StubSense.

Further sub-categories could easily be justified in due course, but these are the two most pressing. Bastin 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be a tricky one, as it's the sort of category that may be applied correctly to someone, without it necessarily being their primary area of notability, if they're also, as you note, a politico, military person, or whatnot. But 508 is a goodly safety margin, so that seems likely enough, so long as people don't go mad with unnecessary double-stubbing or inappropriate restubbing, sounds good. Alai 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These already got proposed back in June. There's not any problem with {{diplomat-stub}}, which had as of then had only about 300 potential stubs idetified by StubSense, and could certainly be created now based on that previous proposal. There was a mild disagreemeent over whether to have a diplomacy stub type or a broader international relations stub type, and I've been trying through CFD to get the perma-cats better organized first before resolving that. Phase 1 awaits merely an admin to close out two uncontentious CFD upmerges. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Film bio split

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.

Based on counts only from the film-bios... Alai 04:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

again, biographical or biography? Grutness...wha? 05:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Fict-org-stub}} / Category:Fictional organizations 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.

There are plenty of fictional organizations out there, from super-hero teams to groups on television shows. Jfingers88 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But are there plenty of stub articles about fictional organizations? Caerwine Caerwhine 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. But I would assume they're merely listed in a broader category, such as {{Tv-stub}} or {{comics-stub}}. Jfingers88 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please find them first. Because of the nature of fictional organization articles, I'm not certain there will be many stubs. An organization found in only a single work of fiction shouldn't be broken out of the article on that work unless there is more than a stub's worth of article. Only in the case of organizations found in multiple works should there even be stub articles. I realize that this ideal of what should happen with subtopics is not always followed, but I'd like something firmer than "there ought to be enough stubs" in this case. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 111 articles under Category:Fictional organizations which qualify as stub size (less than 512k, fewer than 7 wikilinks). Of course, I don't know if they merit anything larger than stub size, but there it is. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Equivocal. There seems to be the population, as Peg notes, but I fear that this won't do much to reduce the size of existing large types, and will probably just increasing double-stubbing, as few topics are primarily notable for being "fictional organizations", and most are probably quite correctly sorted as tv-stubs, comics-stubs, etc. Alai
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2006/July&oldid=1034526639"