Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive11

Proposals, September 2005

Splits of ({{Academic-bio-stub}} and ({{Reli-bio-stub}}

Looking for outsize profession-stub categories, I've found these two, both now north of 800 stubs. If we split on country lines, it's likely to help with US-bio-stub; OTOH, splitting respectively by discipline (possibly) and religion (almost certainly) may actually be more attractive options. Canvassing opinions either way. Alai 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been randomly surfing through {{reli-bio-stub}}, aselectly clicking on links, and I've come across many stubs about bishops. So I would like to bring up the possibility of {{bishop-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " resulted in 92 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " gave me 83 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" "(to check for doubles with the two earlier queries) brought about 32 hits. This group of religious biographies has enough stub articles for a stub template and stub category, so I would like to officially propose {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, names like Christian-bio-stub and Moslem-bio-stub would be best, but that doesn't specify that the bios are of people specifically connected to the church, so they're terms probably better avoided. 32 is a little thin - how about widening the bishop category a little and making it Clergy-stub, for all Christian clergy - bishops, priests, archbishops, etc? Also, would an Imam-stub for the Moslem equivalent be useful? Grutness...wha? 00:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 32 doubles in the queries. This means that there are 60 unique bishop hits and 51 unique archbishop hits. This means that the bishop stub category will contain at least 111 articles. Aecis 08:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps name them Christian-relibio-stub and Muslim-relibio-stub, to make it more clear that they're still religious biographies? Clergy-stub also sounds like a good idea. --Mairi 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a {{Germany-academic-bio-stub}} down below to assist with sorting out {{Germany-bio-stub}}. Caerwine 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication stub

Proposal by Rauh 03:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose a stub for topics on communication field of research and science. Many stubs that would fall in this category are assigned to psychology, political, linguistics etc. when the main research effort is done by communication scholars and publshed on communication journals. This spread of topics on other discipline stubs makes it hard for people who know the communication research domain to fill out these articles.

Some examples:

Rauh 03:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that this would be very well-defined. In particular, none of the above articles have a common permanent category, or category parent in common; surely proposing that would be a logical first step? Alai 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is well defined since all of the above appear in any introduction to communication course or book, plus a lot of other related material. I was also following the logic of having psychology stubs, sociology stubs, etc. However, I can see your point on getting them under a category first. Still, I think that some would go under the existing comm theory category, others under communication category. I was thinking that the stub would provide a central place for all of those. What do you suggest that I do? Rauh 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I haven't seen in this discussion, is a proposed template and matching category. So here is my proposal (or rather, my processing of the discussion above): {{com-sci-stub}} / Category:Communication science stubs. What I also haven't heard is an indication of how many articles would fit into this category. I don't think it will be hard to make this reach the threshold, but it's best to be on the safe side. Aecis 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposed template and category is interesting but it might need to be more general than that since a lot of communication research or studies are not scientific but humanistic (e.g. symbolic interactionism) and such, although it becomes somewhat blurred with Linguistics. Communication science might be a better defined domain.

Is there any guideline to creating a count of articles that would fit in that category? There is a Communication basic topics page that cover many of the articles that would fit in there. The Communication studies article might also be informative. Can you please inform me a little more on how to compile this list/count? Rauh 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comm-sci-stub would be better that com-sci-stub, otherwise there'll be confusion with computer science. Actually, communication-sci-stub would be better yet, though probably not really necessary. ISTR there is already a com-stub, though (linking to Category:Telecommunications stubs). It sounds also like some of the stubs you're thinking of are alreadly listed as socio-stubs (Category:Sociology stubs) and ling-stubs (Category:Linguistics stubs). The best way to compile a count would be to go through the relevant stub categories that might have some of these articles and see what you can find. If there were 50 or more, then a separate stub type would definitely be viable. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comm-stubs or comm-sci-stubs, of course. One of the reasons that I suggested the comm-stubs was exactly because many of the articles that would fall under this category are scattered around in Category:Telecommunications stubs, Category:Sociology stubs, Category:Linguistics stubs, Category:Psychology stubs and Category:Political stubs. But because these are communication topics they are less likely to be filled out by people checking those stub lists. I will go through them and compile a list of candidates to the new stub. Rauh 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After going through all the above stub categories here is a list of articles appropriate for a comm-stub or a comm-sci-stub:

Rauh 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To return to my "well-definedness" point; the thing is, none of the [originally] cited articles are in any pre-existing permanent communications category, and several of them are in distinct permanent categories. What I didn't realize at the time, however, was that there already in fact is a Category:Communication (which would be one obvious place to start looking for perm-catted stubs). If what's being proposed is the stub counterpart of that, then fair enough (subject to a "viability count"), but I'm personally still not at all clear what the precise scope actually is, and I'm dubious about how consistently applied and "stable" the permanent category actually is. That is, are the majority of the articles with the intended scope already in that category, and if not, would catting them that way be clearly defined, generally agreed, and uncontroverial? If the overlap with media studies, linguistics, sociology, etc, is too high, or too debatable, then this may be more trouble than it's worth. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Made the above comment last night, didn't notice the resultant edit conflict. Some additional thoughts:) Thanks for doing the detailed count-down, Rauh. However, I still have concerns: Looking at a number of that list, it seems that this is more of a "cross-stubbing" than a stub-sorting proposal; the majority already have entirely reasonable-looking stub tags (and some already have two such); many already have permanent categories not included in the communications category hierarchy. Thus I think in a lot of these cases, adding "comm-stub" would be proposing significant additional category overlap, and restubbing them as such, category "drift". Mind you, I've never been a fan of the only one (or only two) stub tags notion, so that's not necessarily a bad thing as such, at least if the additional tagging is really likely to get those articles significant extra attention from "communications" people, rather than "linguistics" people, etc. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alai, I can certainly understand your point and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that such a controversy runs inside communication research as well. Since communication is a "universalist" topic present in a lot of disciplines it becames difficult to categorize topics as "just" communication. Even definitions of such that most researchers agree are hard to come by. However, you must agree that there is certainly such a concept as "communication" and that there is a related field of study of "communication" and a more specific subdomain of "communication science" that takes as its subject matter the concept we are debating here. Social psychology and sociology suffer of the same problem on many domains. The fact that some pages are currently categorized under certain categories does not make that categorization right. I believe that the above pages would most correctly be categorized under communication studies (or science for most). With possible a second categorization with the topic of communication in consideration (e.g. Politics for Agenda Setting, possibly).

Having said that, my point in suggesting the creation of a communications stub is that I firmly believe that editors who search a psychology (or politics, sociology, etc.) stub list will be less likely to fill out the above topics compared to editors who search a communications stub. The topics listed above are central to communication research but periferical to these other domains. I think that the goal here is to have these stubs filled out and getting them on a comm stub list might help in that process.

One final argument that I have is that as I have been roaming through communication cateogory and communication research topics I have noticed that it is not well covered. There are inumerous topics that could be added. Most of the pages are of very bad quality and obviously edited by, alas, people with psychology and sociology background. My project is also to edit this content area somewhat and the stub, I hope, will help me get some more people involved in the process. Maybe I should start this the other way around and starting working on the topics and come back later for the stub, but since there are plenty of pages for this list I'd rather advance the process. Rauh 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to support this, on the basis of the central/peripheral "acid test" you suggest. I'm not sure stub categories are much of a way in and of themselves of attracting editors out of a blue sky -- maybe you should look at a WikiProject:Communications? (Or Comm. Sci.) Certainly they're a facility for editors that are already so inclined. Good luck with your doubtless upcoming clashes with psychologists and sociologists -- alas. :) Alai 04:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More splits in mil-stub hierarchy

{{US-navy-stub}}. There's at least 200 US Navy ship stubs in {{mil-ship-stub}}, alone. (An immediate sub-cat of which would be another possibility; {{US-mil-ship-stub}}?)
{{US-mil-bio-stub}}. In one case I found myself triple-stubbing something as {{US-bio-stub}}, {{US-mil-stub}}, and {{mil-bio-stub}}, which is getting into set theory gone mad territory. And mil-bio-stub has about 920 stubs, so itself is in need of a split.
{{UK-mil-stub}}. Haven't done a count, but looks certain to be viable.
{{Germany-mil-stub}}. Lots of historical stuff (or should these be going into WW2 categories and such like?).

There are probably other feasible sub-cats that could be split out, these seem by eyeball to be the most pressing for starters. Alai 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit wary of the triple-hyphened ones, though I can see them coming in time (and we've got US-midwest-geo-stub and the like, so there is a precedent). US-mil-ship-stub could be quite useful, though.

The UK and Germany categories are definitely good ideas, although also note that there is Nazi-stub. I can't remember the exact parameters for it, but it could well include all WWII Germany articles. And, as you said, there is a WWII-stub.

As for US-mil-bio-stub, US-bio-stub and mil-bio-stub is probably enough for now - and no bio articles should get US-mil-stub (which isn't for people - people shouldn't be in any categories other than bio or occupation!) Grutness...wha? 03:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, thanks. The triple-hyphens are pretty ugly-looking, yeah, if anyone has any better names, fire away. Even without the triple-stubbing, though, the "US-mil-bio-stub" (in some form) one looks almost an inevitability, given the numbers. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-mil-stub}} created, and (partially) populated. Now has "adopted" {{RAF-stub}} as a sub-cat. Alai 02:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{US-bcast-stub}}

Now about 1000 stubs. Split out the radio stations and the TV stations? Alai 09:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}

I'd like to create this template to aid in the improvement of articles about British television channels as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels. Currently most articles are tagged as {{UK-bcast-stub}} or {{TV-stub}}. This template would move them into a single category, which would then categorise as a subcategory of the categories linked to by both of these.

Suggested text:

This article on a British television channel is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced you're going to get 50 or more stubs in that category. At the moment, British broadcasting stations are covered by UK-bcast-stub, which has under 350 stubs, most of which are radio stations. I doubt if there are more that 20 UK TV station stubs in there, so a separate category seems unnecessary. The again, if some of them are incorrectly marked with TV-stub, and there is a wikiproject, and there's talk above of splittng up US-bcast-stub... hmm. Anyone? (Nice icon, BTW) Grutness...wha? 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a good chance it could get to 50, (I haven't actually counted) as if you look in Category:British television channels there is a fair few articles there, and many, if not more than half are stubs all tagged differently, some untagged. Plus many more will be added (look at all the red links on List of British television channels). Cheers about the icon ;) MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Activism Stubs

--naught101 01:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC) there are plenty of pages on vaious types of activism, I would suggest that these go under politics. I'm not sure if activists should also go under activism, or have its own stub type. I will come back and add the numbers that I can find for each type, and there are probably more type that these. I would suggest among others:[reply]

(I slightly reorganised the above, since they're easier to debate in one load) I strongly doubt you're going to find more that 60 stubs for each of these - and several of these are already well covered by other stub types ({{LGBT-stub}} and {{fem-stub}}, for instance). Tentatively I'd support one overall {{activism-stub}} and a separate {{activist-stub}}, although in each case you may be very much in danger of the same sort of POV issues with those templates as with the recently declined terrorist-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would definately find an {{activist-stub}} for political activists as a daughter category of {{poli-bio-stub}} useful. There are already several activists in that category.--Carabinieri 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting off with just {{activism-stub}} and {{activist-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Atleast the POV issues would be less than terrorist-stub, I'd hope. Also, "queer" is offensive to some, so that name would be less than desirable. --Mairi 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, {{ii-lang-stub}}

I'd also like to reduce the load of {{ie-lang-stub}} by creating stub categories for the Germanic languages, the Romance languages, and the Indo-Iranian languages. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about the need for these, and whether there are enough for all 3, as {{ie-lang-stub}} only has 198 stubs. --Mairi 23:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I don't see the need to split the Indo European stubs. Only if there were a WikiProject associated with one of the proposed subtypes could I see the desirability at this point. Caerwine 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with looking only at {{ie-lang-stub}} is that there are still a whole lot of Indo-European languages in {{lang-stub}}, and most of them are Romance, Germanic, or Indo-Iranian. I am confident that if {{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, and {{ii-lang-stub}} get implemented, there will be at least 60 articles listed in each of those as well as in the parent {{ie-lang-stub}}. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just stubsorted B and C of Category:Language stubs, and Category:Indo-European language stubs is already up to 209 from 198. If I go all the way to the end of Category:Language stubs, there will probably be over 250 articles in Category:Indo-European language stubs. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture or Fad stubs

moved to correct place on page Grutness...wha?

You will have to excuse my ignorance; I am a newbie at all of this. I have taken an interest in Pop culture and Fads and categorizing and creating articles for these categories. I think a fad or pop culture stub would be appropriate. Obviously a pop culture stub would cover the fad one too, so probably the better choice. Here are a few that I've picked out, but I've run across many short articles, and plan on at creating more stubs as well. I realize that some of these articles have other categories, but I feel a pop culture stub could create a more appropriate response for many of the articles. For example, you can put pet rock under toys, but people interested in pet rocks would more than likely be so due to its pop culture impact. Yes? no? I don't know how to make a stub either. So if Yea, then maybe one of you oldtimer wizzes can do that for me. If not, I will look it up :D

(Wrinehart 07:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Mmmm. this one might get to 50 stubs - and for the life of me I can't think of what other stub would be used for them. So tentatively, I'd support it. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I only began categorizing fads under pop culture by decade two nights ago. Since then there have been at least two other folks categorizing this way as well. I think the stub could expand the pop culture area of Wikipedia. :) (Wrinehart 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I don't believe this is a necessary stub category. There already is a {{culture-stub}}. And there are plenty of other categories (fashion, games, food, dance, toys, vocabulary, music) that would cover most anything falling into "popular culture". Also, to my mind, several of the articles listed here, while slight, hold their own as articles, not stubs, and are best left in their current categories. J. Van Meter 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do not believe there would be a significant number of people interested in Pop Culture type articles specifically, and want to expand on these? Culture is a very broad area, whereas a pop culture stub would cover a large variety of topics and is still nowhere near as specific as some of the proposed stubs I've seen. Wrinehart 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are "interested in Pop Culture type articles." But we don't judge or approve stub template proposals by the number of interested users. So far, only 7 articles have been mentioned that could use this stub. I'm not asking you to name every single article that could possibly use this template, but what I haven't heard in this discussion is an indication of how many pop culture or fad stub articles Wikipedia currently has. Will this stub template/category reach the threshold of roughly 50 to 60 articles? Aecis 13:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-navy-stub}} vs. {{US-mil-ship-stub}}; {{RN-ship-stub}}

Already proposed above, and no strident objections, but I haven't gotten around to doing either, or indeed actually deciding which. I'd be inclined to go with the latter, simply because it'll be a pretty large category in and of itself, without throwing in "other" US Naval stubs besides, and to preserve them within the current sub-tree (well, sub-dag, actually, but...) of the hierarchy they're in at present: {{mil-ship-stub}}, which itself is over 700 stubsworth. Similarly, there are more than enough for "Royal Navy ship stubs" -- in fact, there's plenty for two categories, should anyone prefer to have {{HMS-ship-stub}} and {{RFA-ship-stub}}. Alai 20:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for stubs with abbreviations for specific branches of military, could use {{USN-ship-stub}}. Do any other branches of the US military have ships, besides Navy and Coast Guard? What about for the British military? --Mairi 21:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The US Army has some ships of its own for transporting its stuff from one place to another without having to depend upon the good graces of the navy, and it operated the riverine warcraft for a during the early part of the US Civil War before the Navy took those vessels over. Caerwine 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the extra hyphen, I think I'd feel happier with US-mil-ship-stub and UK-mil-ship-stub. It has the advantage that if we needed to split further it could be done by understandable names - I don't want to have to look up the name of the Chinese or Russian navy every time I find an article that needs stubbing, for instance. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went with Grutness's names for these. I hestitate to sort the RFAs in with the HMSs, though: they're both rather lengthy to simply lump them back in together. Perhaps {{UK-aux-ship-stub}} as a sub-cat? Alai 03:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created UK-aux-ship-stub too; part-populated. Alai 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across some 70 stubs that would be able to use this stub, scattered over a wide variety of Africa related stub categories. Probably more, especially since compared to some people, I'm conservative when it comes to applying country level stubs. Most of these do not have {Africa-stub}, but rather one of its sub types, so it won't help that much with trimming that cat, but that cat isn't in need of serious surgey at the moment anyway. Caerwine 21:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also been a lot of growth recently in the Ghana geo-stubs (which went from 30 two weeks ago to 70 now) - it could well be worth proposing a geo-stub for it too, especially given the size of AfricaW-geo-stub. The one problem with Ghana-stub is that there are two distinct and unrelated places: modern Ghana and ancient Ghana (which was approximately modern Mauritania to Chad). Would Ghana-stub deal with both? Grutness...wha? 00:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting just the modern Ghana, which means I would have been more selective if you count also includes ancient Ghana. By my count there are only about 45 Ghana geo stubs and I completed that census just a day ago. Were all those stubs in {AfricaW-geo-stub}? Caerwine 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Ghana's stub population, as I said, is growing fast! Grutness...wha? 04:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]