Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/October 2008
![]() | 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 October 2008. Please move completed October discussions to this page as they are closed, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After October, 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.
The thing is, while there are not 60 stubs of Norwegian politicians born in the 1740s or 1750s, this is meant to be categorized in the large Category:Norwegian politician, 18th century birth stubs. Categorizing here, and not in the vague Category:Norwegian politician stubs, would be good. Punkmorten (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy support per precedent. Waacstats (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy, and might as well throw in the remaining decades, too. Alai (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- SpeedyBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (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.
The Bald One White cat 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll upmerge this now. The Bald One White cat 11:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Template: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.
The Bald One White cat 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support with by nation templates. Waacstats (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are many missing articles from spanish wiki which I have and will be adding further so that seems like a logical idea. Upmerge the ones that don't qualify? The Bald One White cat 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposals:
- {{Mexico-writer-stub}}
- {{Belize-writer-stub}}
- {{ElSalvador-writer-stub}}
- {{CostaRica-writer-stub}}
- {{Guatemala-writer-stub}}
- {{Honduras-writer-stub}}
- {{Nicaragua-writer-stub}}
- {{Panama-writer-stub}}
Could somebody offer a stub count and which need upmerging, me has to go to beddy boys. Cheers The Bald One White cat 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Change to {{ElSalvador-writer-stub}} and add {{Guatemala-writer-stub}}. Probably best to upmerge all of them till we have an exact figure.Waacstats (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, but one comment - Mexico is rarely if ever described as being in Central America, so hopefully it will reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah - I see it's already got its own cat... and I've just removed the vandalism from it :/ Grutness...wha? 22:53, 3 October 2008 (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.
- Template upmerged
Create as upmerged template for {{Asia-school-stub}} and {{Nepal-stub}}. Most of the 26 articles in Category:Schools in Nepal are stubs. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Create upmerged template. As long as it doesn't encourage the creation of non notable school articles The Bald One White cat 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yup - an upmerged template here makes a lot of sense. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Split of Category:Romania geography 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.
We already have templates for all(?) the counties upmerged to regional cats. Someone has been busy and the following are all viable on the basis of those templates.
- Category:Argeş County geography stubs
- Category:Buzău County geography stubs
- Category:Călăraşi County geography stubs
- Category:Dâmboviţa County geography stubs
- Category:Giurgiu County geography stubs
- Category:Ialomiţa County geography stubs
- Category:Mehedinţi County geography stubs
- Category:Mureş County geography stubs
- Category:Teleorman County geography stubs
- Category:Tulcea County geography stubs
- Category:Vrancea County geography stubs
Waacstats (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy. Alai (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Singapore-struct-stub}} and {{SouthKorea-struct-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 Singapore type.
Much needed. Would also take many out of the geography stubs cat. How we are missing one for singapore I have no idea The Bald One White cat 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note that we do have a {{Korea-struct-stub}}, currently upmerged -- we seem to mostly have "conjoined" stub types for (the) Korea(s). I'd be happy to see an upmerged Singapore tag, and I think we could speedy that. Alai (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2008 (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 count ca 70 stubs for government agencies, ministries, affairs etc in Category:Norway stubs, so should be speediable per S2. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- There certainly seem to be a few, though my knowledge of Norwegian is not good enough to know at a glance whether there are 60, and Category:Norway stubs isn't crammed full (seems to be a bit of undersorting, too). A template's a good idea, and if there are indeed 60 then I've no objection to a category either. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Follow-up on the undersorting- I've gone through
A-Jthe lot sorting any that could have gone in subcats - and the main cat's down from 460 to430375. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC), updated 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Follow-up on the undersorting- I've gone through
{{Infosec-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 do not create.
There are a great number of information security related articles which need care to knit them together and flesh them out. Currently, the articles are spread across financial/economic, business, risk analysis/management, and other topics. One of threads that binds these together is information security which is often under-represented as in the following articles. These are not all stubs, but the parts relevant to information security may be considered stubs in some cases. Single loss expectancy, Risk assessment (I've begun to add infosec information to the article), Risk management, Information assurance, Information security, Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Vulnerability (computing), Exploit (computer security), Computer security, Computer insecurity. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this should be scoped more as "computer security"; there is already a {{crypto-stub}} but I imagine there are lots of other sub-cats to be considered. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Information security is actually a broader topic than computer security. It encompasses things like communications systems and networks, security awareness training, and even things such as physical building security. The problem is that there are many more specific-type stubs, such as cryptography, but nothing that encompasses this broader discipline. As a result, there is no cohesive information security sections within relevant articles. Basically, the information security aspects of relevant articles are being overlooked, or added only disjointedly and intermittently. DavidBailey (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- What would be the permcat for this type? The closest I could find was Category:Information sensitivity, which I believe is not the same thing. Also, if it's portions of articles which need further development on information security, it's {{sectstub}} you need. I can try to get a count for you if you can nail down where I should look. Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Or {{expand-section}}, as it's canonically called these days. I share all the above concerns: one person's broader topic is another's more loosely-defined one, I fear, and this could cut across existing types in a way that might not be helpful for other editors coming at the same topics from different disciplinary scopings. Likewise, 'numerosity' could be a concern. Perhaps a talk-page template would be a better way to go. (Is there a Wikiproject/Task Force/Work Group to cover this area?) Alai (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's not just expanding the section, it's that there isn't one, regarding information security, in a lot of these articles. I was wondering if a Wikiproject would be the way to go instead of a stub tag, but I'm less familiar with the administration and operation of those. In my efforts to locate a Wikiproject regarding information security, I came up empty. Under Computing, the closest would be "Computer Science". Under Information Science, there really isn't anything related. DavidBailey (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- If push comes to shove, you can always create an empty section, and add {{expand-section}}... Though if the article is otherwise-complete looking, that might be a little jarring, but it seems preferable to labelling the whole article a stub, if it isn't. Alai (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- However, I did find a proposal for Computer and Information Security taskforce that looks promising. I'll redirect my efforts there. DavidBailey (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's not just expanding the section, it's that there isn't one, regarding information security, in a lot of these articles. I was wondering if a Wikiproject would be the way to go instead of a stub tag, but I'm less familiar with the administration and operation of those. In my efforts to locate a Wikiproject regarding information security, I came up empty. Under Computing, the closest would be "Computer Science". Under Information Science, there really isn't anything related. DavidBailey (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Or {{expand-section}}, as it's canonically called these days. I share all the above concerns: one person's broader topic is another's more loosely-defined one, I fear, and this could cut across existing types in a way that might not be helpful for other editors coming at the same topics from different disciplinary scopings. Likewise, 'numerosity' could be a concern. Perhaps a talk-page template would be a better way to go. (Is there a Wikiproject/Task Force/Work Group to cover this area?) Alai (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (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.
Proposed for speedy create - There's already a template. The category got upmerged into physical chemistry stubs 2 years ago, presumably for lack of entries... There are currently 67 stubs for this category, after a not-really-complete sorting process, and several people to actively work on sorting & improving the articles. The category would focus and accelerate that. -- Jaeger5432 | Talk 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Recreated under WikiProject Chemistry as {{analytical-chem-stub}}, with category and hierachy. Physchim62 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)