Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 05:10, 20 September 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Proposals, April-May 2005

Subdivisions of {{broadcasting-stub}}

For the beginning of this discussion, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive16.

A suggestion to focus on "radio and tv"

One part of the suggestions made by User:Lifeisunfair is to change "Broadcasting" to "Radio and TV" thereby making it clear what technologies are being addressed. I don't think that I want to go through another round of changing the template title, but we could change the text to reflect a more focused scope. The current text reads 

This broadcasting-related article is a stub.

My suggestion for changing would be to 

This radio or television broadcasting-related article is a stub.

I think this is a reasonable sharpening of focus as it really is just reflecting what the topic really is.

Would this be OK with the folks here? Courtland July 2, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

It would be good, in that it cuts out possible definitions including printed media and films - both of which are covered elsewhere. Where would podcasting be covered? Website-stub? Are you going ahead with Canada-station(or bcast)-stub, BTW? It's been a while since you suggested it... Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Further split of UK-geo-stub

I've moved the following from further up the page, where i seemed to be the only person talking about it... Grutness...wha?

There are some 4000 geo-stubs marked UK-geo-stub. Scotland, NI, Wales and London have already been split off. Is it worth splitting the rest into the eight regions of England? I note that the Regions of England article seems to talk about various different types of split, and the main one seems to overlap several county boundaries (which would be the other logical split). Suggestions? Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)

There's been some discussion of this over at Category talk:Geography stubs - When I next get time (hah!) I'm going to do a tally of the UK geo-stubs, to see which individual counties could be pared off - I think there are a few. It might be a case of going the same way as with Africa-geo-stub: England as a parent of regions as a parent of counties. Trouble is, of course, there are traditional counties and governmental ones. Why does England have to be so difficult with its geography??? Grutness...wha? 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a count-up, see which counties can be pared. Seems the Wikipolicy is to use current governmental counties. One editor is busy creating Channel Island stubs at a rate of knots, too, so that may also be splittable (now we need someone to do the same with the Isle of Man...) Grutness...wha? 00:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: What I would like to do, with the permission of WP:WSS, is start splitting county-based categories as soon as I know for sure there are over 100 stubs that can fit in there, rather than going through the formal one week debate (hopefully I'm trustworthy enough here for this not to worry too many people). Some editors seem to be getting quite impatient for this category to be split up, so the sooner it's started, the better. After counting 300 of the stubs, it looks likely that Lincolnshire, of all places, will be the first split (so far, nearly 50 stubs). I intend to use the current governmental counties, as per Wiki policy, but to keep some grouped so that we don't suddenly get 50 new categories (obvious ones like the Yorkshire counties, for instance, and Liverpool/Manchester/Lancashire). It would also probably be worthwhile maaking an all-encompassing England category and/or template, but I'll wait on that until a few counties are split off, so that the task is easier. I will report any new templates here as they are created. If anyone has any comments for or against this idea, please say now, before I start doing the split! (I'll wait a week for feedback before starting) Grutness...wha? 05:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Count update: after counting the first 1000 stubs, not county yet has 100 stubs, but five counties (assuming you count Yorkshire as one county) make up almost exactly 1/3 of the stubs between them: Durham, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Dorset, and Somerset. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
For. I think Grutness is well-qualified to make the split. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I see a problem there: if we do it like this, I for one couldn't sort the not so obvious places into the pertaining county and/or region stubs, as I don't keep an atlas near; I had always hoped that stub sorting could be simple :) Lectonar 13:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which case tag it with "cleanup-context" on the grounds that UK geography articles need to tell you what county they're in. Joe D (t) 11:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we all (sigh! :). If it reassures you any, then it will be like geo-stub and africa-geo-stub - there's no intention of removing the plain UK-geo-stub, and items can simply be dumped in there for further sorting. Also, most of the stubs (I'd say 90%) either say in the text which county they're about or have a category at the bottom with a county name as part of it. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The count - and how to split it?

Okay - I've completed the count-up of all 3869 unsubcategorised UK-geo-stubs. The problem now is how to split it. The governmental regions of England are remarkably arbitrary, and cut across existing county lines, let alone the traditional ones that many people still use. For that reason also, some of the labelling of places in particular counties is only approximate - I've found confllicting information as to whether Cleveland is still going as Teesside, or whether it has reverted to being part of Durham and Yorkshire, for instance.

Having said that, one thing is clear - several counties have well over 100 geo-stubs, and several other might be groupable for historical/geographic reasons (e.g., Lancashire/Merseyside/Manchester). The following look the best bets for a split:

Eight other counties (Northamptonshire, Somerset, Devon, West Midlands, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, and Shropshire) reach the 90 stub mark. By chance, these could possibly be combined into pairs (Devon/Somerset, Hampshire/Berkshire, Northants/Bucks, West Midlands/Shropshire). For historical reasons, it would probably also be worthwhile having {{Cornwall-geo-stub}} (87 stubs), and maybe also a {{UK-crown-geo-stub}} for the crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the isle of Man (45 stubs).

User:RHaworth, unaware of this count-up, created a {{England-geo-stub}} and accompanying category, which I temporarily turned into a redirect to {{UK-geo-stub}}, but which can be reverted to make a category to hold all these county stubs.

One good thing to note from all of this is that the redirect {{uk-geo-stub}} is very little used (only about 100 of the 3869 stubs use it), so it may be a potential deletion candidate soon.

I'd welcome advice from this. I'm still very much in "low-Wiki" mode at the moment, and this will be a lot of work. I'm also leaving information about this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset is about to go over 100 stubs, I've been going importing parish population data. Joe D (t) 11:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset is actually considerably over 100 already. The reason I didn't suggest separate stubs for each of the eight I named above is that I didn't want to suddenly swamp everyone with 14 or 15 new stub categories. The full counts are as follows:
Durham - 456; Yorkshire - 298; Dorset - 244; Lincolnshire - 157; Northamptonshire - 144; Somerset - 136; West Midlands - 133; Buckinghamshire/Milton Keynes - 124; Berkshire - 115; Devon - 104; Hampshire - 104; Shropshire - 92; Cornwall - 87; Gloucestershire - 87; Sussex - 87; Kent - 85; Merseyside - 82; Norfolk - 80; Wiltshire - 78; Cumbria - 74; Manchester - 74; Staffordshire - 70; Essex - 68; Lancashire - 68; Derbyshire - 67; Surrey - 64; Hertfordshire - 60; Leicestershire - 57; Rutland - 55; Cambridgeshire - 49; Suffolk - 46; Warwickshire - 44; Nottinghamshire - 40; Cheshire - 39; Oxfordshire - 32; Channel Is - 26; Tyne and Wear - 26; Worcestershire - 26; Bedfordshire - 25; Bristol - 25; Northumberland - 24; IOW - 21; Herefordshire - 19; IOM - 16; plus 63 from more than one county.
Grutness...wha? 11:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How sure are you of your figures? For instance, the count of 55 for Rutland is suspiciously high, especially as there are only 23 articles in Category:Rutland and all subcategories. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure. I counted all of the stubs by hand, and noted down where each article said it was. Those that didn;’t name a county (depressingly, about 10%), I relied on my trusty RAC road atlas. As to Rutland, it surprised me as well, but... well, here’s the list:
Ashwell, Rutland, Ayston, Barleythorpe, Barrow, Rutland, Barrowden, Bearpark, Belmesthorpe, Belton-in-Rutland, Bisbrooke, Braunston-in-Rutland, Brooke, Rutland, Burley, Rutland, Caldecott, Rutland, Clipsham, Cottesmore, Rutland, Edith Weston, Egleton, Empingham, Essendine, Exton, Rutland, Glaston, Great Casterton, Greetham, Rutland, Gunthorpe, Rutland, Hambleton, Rutland, Ketton, Lyddington, Lyndon, Rutland, Manton, Rutland, Market Overton, Morcott, Normanton, Rutland, North Luffenham, Oakham, Pilton, Rutland, Ridlington, River Eye, England, Seaton, Rutland, South Luffenham, Stoke Dry, Stretton, Rutland, Teigh, Thistleton, Thorpe by Water, Tickencote, Tinwell, Tixover, Tixover, Rutland, Upper Hambleton, Uppingham, Wardley, Whissendine, Whitwell, Rutland, Wing, Rutland!
One or two may have slipped through (the stats program I use accepts the first non-ambiguous term, so If I typed DUR for Durham, it would accept DU as Durham then overwrite it with the R for Rutland), but it's very close to accurate. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your post at the UK geography WikiProject, I'm of the opinion that we should use ceremonial counties because I believe that's what most geographers use, and they're the ones most commonly refered to. -- Joolz 12:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happier doing that, too. Sadly, Wiki policy IIRC is to use the standard administrative divisions whenever possible. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places): "it is acceptable to use ceremonial counties as geographic references, as this is often more in line with common usage" so I think that gives us some leeway, since these are geographic stubs -- Joolz 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've used that - far easier, since most of the items had appropriate categories listed. I may have still slipped up a little with Teesside places around the Durham/Yorkshire border, but I hope not too badly. using ceremonial county means the Lancs/Manchester/Merseyside one's a bit more problematical, so I've left it for now. The first county split went well (Durham, Yorkshire, Dorset) and reduced the main category by over 25%, and I've started on Lincolnshire. The next few individual counties I'm thinking of splitting off are:
  • {{Northamptonshire-geo-stub}} (c 150 stubs)
  • {{Somerset-geo-stub}} (c 140 stubs)
  • {{WestMidlands-geo-stub}} (c 140 stubs)
  • {{UK-crown-geo-stub}} (for the Channel Islands and Isle of Man; c 50, and growing fast). The latter I'll only do if there are no complaints, since it doesn't yet reach criterion, but the stubs don't really belong in their current category, since they're not part of the UK. I'm also not totally happy with the name.
Those should cut the initial 3900 stubs down to just 2250 or so. Still huge, but a significant reduction. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding {{Northumberland-geo-stub}} to the list - it's gone from 24 to over 124 in less than two weeks. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel the permanents

Just another dig at all this counting business. The intention is that all stub categories should dwindle to empty eventually, so why should a stub category not start out with fifty or even just a dozen entries. There is another, equally important consideration: what will editors actually use? If the stub categories are too complicated, people will say "I can't be bothered to find out if this area has a county or regional stub category - I will dump it in UK-geo-stubs and leave Grutness to re-allocate it".

I suggest that the stub categories should rigorously parallel the 'permanent' categories. Eg. Bunwell has a permanent category of Villages_in_Norfolk, so its stub category should be Norfolk_stubs or Norfolk_geography_stubs (I don't mind which). Note that we will need a lot of new categories but we do not need lots of new templates - try {{England-geo-stub|Fooshire}} which gives:

File:England flag large.png  This article is a stub relating to Fooshire in England. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Do not use this template yet - see this discussion. Please continue to use {{UK-geo-stub}}

Category:Fooshire stubs

--RHaworth 05:18:05, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

A few things.
First, as you can see from the discussion above, the aim is not to have a stub category for each individual county, but simply to reduce the main body of stubs by paring off the few largest categories. Sure, the aim is to have them qall dwindle in size, but it's far more sensible to have editors only need to sort through a few well-populated categories rather than many virtually empty ones. Say, for example that you were interested in towns in England, but in no specific place in England. It would be far easier for you to pick through ten categories each with 200 items than 50 each with 40 items. The aim is not to be comprehensive in splitting everything off, but rather to have things at the optimum size for editors.
Second, please don't use this sort of metatemplate - heavy-use templates are still a massive strain on the servers. There has been no "all clear" given that MW1.5 can handle all the previous problems with heavily populated template-driven categories, so it's safer not to risk using them until they've been okayed.
Third, it's a bit late to do that anyway, since a few of the categories have already been started - with more appropriate icons than a generic George.
Fourth, having said all that, parallelling the "main" categories is a very good idea, one which would be a very good one to follow. There are a few villages that I've noticed that are in more than one county category, but there would be no problem giving them two stub templates.
Grutness...wha? 10:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does {{England-geo-stub|Dorset}} impose more load on the servers than {{Dorset-geo-stub}}? -- RHaworth 10:53:39, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
The England-geo-stub would be used on some 3600 stubs. We've been told many times that templates should not be on more than a few hundred stubs, as this places a big load on the servers. The same reason is why we stopped using metatemplates in gemeral wherever possible. Having separate templates for each stub type limits the number of articles which use any particular template. The problem is apparently exacerbated when an icon is on the template, too. this gives some of the information about the problem as it was before the upgrade. As I said, this may have been countered somewhat by MW1.5, but no-one's confirmed any improvement, and given that Wikipedia as a whole is growing exponentially, any solution there may or may not have been is likely to only have been temporary. Grutness...wha? 11:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought with regard to stub sorting in the UK - how about grouping Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire together? The three together make up the Thames Valley, after all. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 03:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought of grouping counties - at least as a temporary solution until they got large enough for separating out (I even mentioned a few possibilities above). Bucks and Berks are big enough though (especially if Milton Keynes is included in Bucks) - they each have over 100 stubs. At the moment I'm separating out a few at a time, since a huge amount of work is going on with UK counties, and I suspect most of them will end up with separate stub templates (for example, when I first counted a couple of weeks ago, there were 24 Northumberland stubs; there are now over 120). If combining is necessary, I'd be more tempted to combine Oxon and Glocs (the two Cotswold counties), Norfolk/Suffolk, Leics/Rutland, Hereford/Worcs, and possibly Hants/IoW (the last three pairs have historical ties, anyway) although I suspect that it'll simply be a case of waiting until each county have enough stubs. Other than those currently awaiting split, Bucks, Berks, Hants and Devon have over 100 stubs at present, and five others have 90 or more. I'm just not keen to suddenly start off 30 or so new stub categories at one time! Grutness...wha? 06:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hill stubs

A lot of the stuff in the category comes from hill articles. Who says we should have a UK-hill-stub category? It would help that group of people who are expanding the British hill articles. --Mark J 20:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No - see note at the bottom of the page about river-stub. Individual geographical features are a very bad idea for stub categories - they cut across the idea of dividing by region (which is very thoroughly organised and would take a massive effort to change, and they don't really help editors anyway, since most editors know features of a particular region rather than knowing one particular type of feature nationwide or worldwide. Such feature-stubs are actually specifically mentioned on Wikipedia:Stub as bad ideas for stub types (para. 5 of "New stub categories")! Grutness...wha? 01:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "little" counties

What should the counties with a smaller number of stubs like Wiltshire, Derbyshire, Kent, etc? Should they use England-geo-stub?

For now, yes. If they get to be big enough for their own stub categories, then these will probably get made... but England-geo-stub would be the best place for now. This is also the way the geo-stubs work elsewhere (there isn't a separate Saskatchewan-geo-stub yet, so it uses Canada-geo-stub, for instance). Grutness...wha? 01:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diving-stub

moved to the correct place on the page

We need a category {{diving-stub}}. Anthony Appleyard 05:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we? Are there at least 60 diving stubs? Grutness...wha? 09:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as the category is concerned. There are only four articles in there now. They all have an existing stub type so the diving-stub double stubs them. There was a fifth entry but I removed the stub from it as it was a disambiguation page. I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that there are sufficient diving related stub articles to warrant this stub type. --TheParanoidOne 11:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Animation-stub and Disney-stub

Today I replaced {{cartoon-stub}} with {{animation-stub}} on WP:WSS/ST. Under it, I added {{Hanna-Barbera-stub}} and {{Looney-tunes-stub}}. This is in the supercategory of Language and literature. I assume that it was located there because cartoon-stub was thought to cover comics as well? Anyway, I just noticed {{animation-stub}} listed under Theatre and film, which makes more sense to me. (I'll remove animation stub from the former if no one objects.)

But this brings up a second point: should {{Disney-stub}} be a subcategory of {{animation-stub}} considering it contains articles such as Compass Rose Corporation and Pleasure Island? Perhaps it should move to a subcategory of {{Corp-stub}}? I haven't done a count, but perhaps {{Disney-stub}} should be split into two: Disney-animation-stub and Disney-corp-stub? Thoughts? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. good point. I don't know if we need to split it, but perhaps putting one of the italicised "See under" lines {{Disney-stub}}, see under Corp-stub below, or whatever, where it is on the animation list would make more sense. It would also make it more clear that it covered aspects of Disney other than just the cartoons. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I'm not 100% happy with Category:Disney stubs being a subcategory of Category:Corporation stubs—it looks out of place to me among the other generic subcategories. I guess I'd like it better if Disney was a subcategory of US-corp-stub, but that doesn't exist. If anyone has any better ideas, get to it. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Update: I moved Category:Disney stubs to Category:Leisure corporation stubs. I'm 99 44/100 % happy. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

River-stub

I could have sworn that I'd seen this; has it been deleted? It would be very useful, as many rivers pass through different countries, necessitating either an invidious choice between country stubs or multiple stubs.

Deleted long ago. Not that many rivers go through more than three countries, and those that do can just be given the continent or region's geo-stub (Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America all have continent-geo-stub templates - Africa also has regional ones). And double-stubbing when a river goes through two countries isn't so bad. As for three countries... either is possible; technically three stubs is frowned on, but some of us turn a blind eye to a third template. So, for example:
Grutness...wha? 04:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that there were rather a lot of rivers that flowed through more than one country (especially in Europe and Africa), but OK. There's at least one instruction somwhere that tells editors not to use more than one stub per article; does that need to be changed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say "Not that many rivers go through more than three countries". And the rule used is "two different stub templates may be used, but using more than two is strongly discouraged" (third paragraph of WP:STUB#Categorizing_stubs). More than one stub is necessary a lot of the time. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic stubs

Many stub articles (i.e. substubs and good stubs) have no apparent potential of passing the stub line. Due to this issue, we should make a new template: {{dynamic-stub}}.

Just like there is a template called {{dynamic list}} for lists that have no apparent potenetial of becoming complete. --SuperDude 01:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this item belongs down here under "Discussions" or whether it's a proposal (in which case it should be further up the page - but it's probably more of a discussin thing anyway. Actually, wev've had discussions on the WSS talk page about similar things in the past, ISTR. My two cents is that most things can pass the stub line. The few that can't aren't stubs, they're just short articles, so shouldn't have any stub template. All they need is invisible text saying something like <!-- although this article is small, it is no longer a stub - please do not add a stub template -->. Grutness...wha? 03:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and this one would be naturally very subjective to use and to place; how would you define something which has no potential to grow (the only things that jump straight to my mind are kind of dicdefs, which shouldn't be around anyway) Lectonar 06:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a bit of thinking aloud here... if we went the invisible text way, that could be added by a template called something like non-stub (not dynamic-stub - it's actually the opposite. It's the one type of stub-length article not likely to change!) Grutness...wha? 06:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more like a Merge in search of someplace to be merged into. (SEWilco 06:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Education stubs

Major problems exist with the various education stub categories. In the last week or so, {{edu-stub}} has been repointed at Category:University stubs, and a new category and stub type, both miscapitalised, have been created: {{General-Edu-stub}} and Category:General Education stubs. The main reason for this confusion is the current mishmash of names for categories and templates relating to universities and other tertiary institutions. What I propose is the following:

(there are also some other inconsistencies with the category names at present - noun university stubs and adjective school stubs - but they're a minor quibble for later).

This would require the following changes:

Thoughts? Grutness...wha? 00:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make alot more sense than the current system. --Mairi 21:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even with all of the university stubs and stub categories I've created, it's all still a huge mess. The Hong Kong and Canada education stubs are particularly frustrating because they cover a much broader topic than they probably should. And on that note, what about {{seminary-stub}}? Should that even exist, since most of the schools in there could go into country categories instead? Same with {{lawschool-stub}}. Kamezuki 00:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
They might be a problem with the system, but I think tidying up the main part and worrying about those two later would be the best way to proceed. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat what I already wrote at SFD - I already agreed with you about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive16#Category:Education_stubs_and_the_situation_with_education-related_stubs_in_general --Joy [shallot] 23:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I've made a start - any help would be appreciated, especially on changing articles with General-Edu-stub (removing the "General-")! I'm working my way through the Canada-edu-stubs moving them to Canada-university-stub. After that it will be the task of going through the University stubs, to see where they are all from and whether any other countries can be split off. Hong Kong should be fairly simple (it only contains about 40 items). Grutness...wha? 09:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive4&oldid=23574677"