Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2010/April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plasticspork (talk | contribs) at 03:53, 28 September 2010 (Substitute template per Wikipedia:Deletion process). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, April 2010

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.

various splits of Category:Scientist stubs

Politician stubs

Couple more Sports video game categories

More video game stubs

Further split of Category:Conidae stubs

Currently, the Category:Electronics stubs is a top-level stub category and is oversized. A good part of its contents can be up-merged to the parent Category:Electricity stubs, which does not exist yet, but would be a fine top-level category (or a subcat of Category:Physics stubs). I have already re-stubbed several of the misplaced electronics stubs: please take a look at {{Electric-stub}} and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Electric-stub. Note that Electronics is just a subset of Electrical engineering, and that marking some articles with "electronics stub" template is rather illogical.

In the end of the day, the scheme should look like:

(Electronics stubs could be further catagorized by {{Consumer-electronics-stub}} but let's do it one step at at time). No such user (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable way to go about tidying up this area. Waacstats (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, creating a category at this level is already justified. If we declare "Electronics" as a sub-category of "Electricity", then we already have the needed 60 articles by virtue of the subcategory. Dawynn (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Massivley oversized, mainly due to large numbers of main belt asteroids that need moving but could also be cut down slightly by the following

won't cut it down on it's own but I am sorting large numbers out of it. Waacstats (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oversized, already have by county upmerged templates and the following tempalte has past 70 so propose it has it's own category.

and if anyone knows of any useful regions for the other 60+ counties. Waacstats (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

oversized, uses upmerged templates by county but suggest using 'regions' to breakthisdown a bit

for starters. Waacstats (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

this one is only' slightly oversized. I propose the following splits

should easily cut it down. Waacstats (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another oversized stub cat I propose teh following subcats

that should keep everything below 800 easily. Waacstats (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

another oversized categroy I propose the following

should get close to 70 articles. Waacstats (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Another overized cat I propose the following splits

should de oversize this one. Waacstats (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

over 1100 articles, propose the following

should be a good start. Waacstats (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

another slightly oversized (5000+) the following should be viable

Woin't cut it down much but it's a start. Waacstats (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

slightly oversized I propose the following splits

Don't think this will get it down to below 800 but would be a good start. Waacstats (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There would be a good start to verify its existence firstly next time. Cyclostrematidae is a synonym. Others are OK. --Snek01 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

to Waacstats: Also it is quite useless and misleading categorize such articles without knowledge about the theme. Taxonomy of them can, and in some cases often is changing quite often. Then recategorizing became necessary and categorizing of stubs make additional work. Next time categorize only those ones, that you are familiar with (if there are such gastropods). --Snek01 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

another oversized category. propose the following genus' be split from the main stub cat

this should de oversize it. Waacstats (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This over stubbed splitting is against the goal Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Project_goals number five: "Ensure that any new stub categories and templates are reasonable, usable, and useful." All other criteria are OK, but there is not usefulness of this. But it is already done... Next time stub sorting of gastropods into families is enough. --Snek01 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)