Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/February 2007
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of February 2007. Please move completed February discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After February, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.
Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.
Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.
- Discussion headers:
- {{sfp create}}
- {{sfp nocreate}}
- {{sfp other}} (for no consensus)
- {{sfp top}} for customized result description (use {{sfp top|result}}).
- Discussion footer: {{sfd bottom}}
- 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.
An inordinate amount of producers and directors in Category:Japanese people stubs. There are 143 GHits for "director" + "Japanese biographical article is a stub", and there are others (producer, screenwriter) which would fall through that particular search. It would also be a child of Category:Film biography stubs, or perhaps the proposed Category:Asian film biography stubs below. Neier 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- As some of the "director"s were of video games, I appended "movie" to the google search: 96. Neier 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Seems well justified even by the culled bio-count figure, and the relief from the bio-swamping of the general stubcat ought to be conducive to identifying non-bio articles that need work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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 over 120 Georgia State Route articles currently using the less specific {{South-US-road-stub}} template and more will be added as the WikiProject progresses.--HowardSF-U-T-C- 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but please make the template {{GeorgiaUS-road-stub}}, to follow the naming guidelines (no spaces) and conform to the other Georgia stub templates (such as {{GeorgiaUS-geo-stub}}). And the category name Category:Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs, of course. Alai 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Alai's amendments. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Alai. Valentinian T / C 22:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Citing 5 days, and concensus support, I have created the stub and category based on amendments by Alai.--HowardSF-U-T-C- 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
I've created upmerged templates for these, the former already over 60, the latter in the 50s. That's just populating from the US-tv-progs, which are oversized. Alai 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I love you; you love me; we're a happy family! Support. Aelfthrytha 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support if only to remove The Purple One from my sight...Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The latest geo-stub round-up
- 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.
No countries have got past threshold for new categories, but two more Caribbean nations are up to the 30+ mark where upmerged templates looks reasonable:
- {{SaintKittsNevis-geo-stub}} (upmerged into Category:Caribbean geography stubs)
- {{SaintLucia-geo-stub}} (upmerged into Category:Caribbean geography stubs)
Grutness...wha? 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Class-action support. Alai 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Per nom Valentinian T / C 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Splits of Category:Anatomy 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 category too also needs some new stub types. I recommend the following, again, starting out as upmerged templates.
- {{digestive-stub}} → Category:Digestive system stubs → Category:Digestive system
- {{musculoskeletal-stub}} → Category:Musculoskeletal system stubs → Category:Musculoskeletal system
- {{respiratory-stub}} → Category:Respiratory system stubs → Category:Respiratory system
I chose the name pattern established by {{circulatory-stub}} and while there might be other potential splits, such as reproductive, endocrine, and urinary, but a first glance didn't convince me that there would 60 in any others, though I wouldn't mind doing upmergerd templates for them as well if there is support. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The first two of these would seem to be speediable: see here and here. (The second is marked as NC, but that looks like an oversight.) Spot the lack of enthusiasm on my part for following through on these proposals, but I completely support such a split, if anyone's going to do the slog... Alai 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
UK schools are 2 off being at 800, again; these are at 73 from the various bits and bobs of Yorkshire "proper", but for consistency with previous splits, the English region seems the better category to go with, from ceremonial county templates. Alai 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Aelfthrytha 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
We just started "manuscript stubs" and its off to a flying start (?) and full enough to allow a split off of illuminated manuscripts (hand-illustrated books), apart from the all the other many codex. I've identified 60 to 90 under that category. The parent article will be illuminated manuscript and I would place it under "art history" and "manuscripts" as subcategories of those two stub categories. Goldenrowley 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - although as I've bored some of you all today by saying, the trouble is most of the category are stubs, and likely to remain so for a good time! Anyway, thanks for listening Johnbod 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a problem as such, unless they're "very short article of which it's claimed they're not really stubs at all" (which seems to be something of a theme at present). If they're the latter, is merger a feasible option? Alai 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not really - many important manuscripts actually only have a few illuminated pages, and there is a limit to what can be said, outside a thesis. Even very short articles may well be the most complete source of information outside a full academic library - which of course will delay any improvement. Especially if they have a picture, they can be much more comprehensive (relatively) than much longer articles on bigger topics. So far I haven't disagreed with any stub/not-stub calls I've seen, that I can remember. Merging would be unhelpful. Johnbod 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although they are not lenghthy more could be said on each of the ones I've seen, a good art editor might for instance expand on the art style, and anything original found in the manuscript, as well the historical importance of each. Most were already stubbed just not identified as art ^I mean as illustrated books^ before.Goldenrowley 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Coming as I do from a family with connections in the illuminated manuscript business, I'd say support :) Grutness...wha? 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)