Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2006/July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2006
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pegship (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 27 August 2006 (moving archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals, July 2006

{{internet-forum-stub}}

I believe an exclusive Internet Forum stub is required because there are many Internet Forum articles that are small enough to earn stub status and as of now they can only use the generic Internet Stub. This stub would allow a better way to organize Internet Forum articles that are stubs. Popcorn2008 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]

  • How many such would there be? Alai 13:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if you go to the Internet forums category and check out a few of the forums you can see that many are stubs that have only one section or less. Here's some examples: 6park, AV Talk, Google Earth Community, Google Earth Hacks. Though some of the examples arent stubs as of now, if this new stub were to be created then they could be classified into this category because of their small length. I believe that some of these article creators didnt place a WWW stub on these articles because they didnt think it was appropriate or they didnt know there was a WWW stub. A more specific stub could and would help the Intenet Forums category out significantly. --Popcorn2008 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • StubSense lists 79 stubs total in Category:Internet forums, but only about 67 of them are probably relevant (website-stub, software-stub, web-stub, compu-stub). [1] How would {{internet-forum-stub}} be better than the 4 that I listed? Also, 67 is cutting it pretty close regarding threshold (assuming all of those are distinct articles). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well this new stub would help better organize this specific category of internet sites. Because internet forums are not specifically just websites but are more like communities with various members. A new Internet Forum stub would also help people like me who are more intreasted in adding information to just internet forums and not websites in general. Also, as you can see 67 articles are currently stubs, and there are also many more articles that I would classify as a stub even though it is currently not listed as such. While 67 is very close to the threshold, the number may increase because people will see that they can add this new stub to their own article pertaining to internet forums. --Popcorn2008 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Warhammer-stub}}

A Warhammer-40,000-stub already exists, but as all hobbyists know, there is a distinct difference. I propose the creation of a {{warhammer-stub}} or a {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}}. Arctic-Editor 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • StubSense lists only 42 stubs in Category:Warhammer Fantasy [2], 36 of which are already using the fairly-appropriate {{wargame-stub}} (wargame-stub is a parent of Warhammer-40,000-stub). Perhaps a rename/rescope of {{Warhammer-40,000-stub}} to {{Warhammer-stub}} (which would, of course, include Warhammer 40K) would work. Just my 2 cents, as I don't know much about Warhammer. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope existing type, per Amalas. This keeps coming up, to the same general conclusion, though perhaps the number of stubs is slooooowly increasing. I know there's a difference too, but not so great that both aren't describable as being in a "Warhammer" category. I'd not oppose an upmerged template {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} feeding into the renamed and rescoped Category:Warhammer stubs, which I'll tag for such. Alai 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to any change which merges Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy stubs. While the games are similar, my experience on Wikipedia (particularly as a participant in WikiProject Warhammer 40,000) is that there are few editors who have the required level of knowledge about both games. Merging the stub types will just make it harder for editors to find suitable articles to work on, with no real gain. Cheers --Pak21 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand the difference between Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy, but would a {{Warhammer-stub}} be acceptable to apply to both for now? Then later, you could split out the two into {{warhammer-40,000-stub}}} and {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} if Category:Warhammer stubs go too large. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or to be precise, those templates would be in any case distinct, even initially, and get separate categories when both are >= 60 (or when each has a wikiproject, indeed). Pak, the gain is that there's then a coherent stub type that covers the scope of the original the proposal, which would still be much less than one listing page, so not really any less usable for the 40Kers, without creating what would be an undersized WHF type. Alai 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem I have is that I don't see how a combined Fantasy and 40,000 stub type is going to help to improve any Warhammer 40,000 articles, and I can definitely see how it will make life more difficult, by mixing in articles I know nothing about with articles I do. Surely there must be a better solution to the problem that is facing the Fantasy editors than making life more difficult for 40,000 editors. Cheers --Pak21 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no gain for the (exclusively) 40K editors, certainly. Nor am I claiming the overlap in likely editors is necessarily large (I'm more than familiar with enthusiasts of the one expressing disinterest/contempt for the other (and I'm not speaking of wikipedia editors here)). However, I really don't see how it makes anything "more difficult" (much less life), it's a coherent scope for a category (being two series of games by the same company, with similar names, and overlapping content), and it has the benefit I've just described. If it were being proposed to add 30 articles into an existing stub type with 700, that would be a different matter, clearly, but < 200 articles is not in the realm of "we have any pressing need for two separate stub types for these related subjects". Alai 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are only marginally related wargames, right? Then why not create {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} and feed into Category:Wargame stubs until there are enough stubs for a new category?
    • Somewhat more than "marginally", but that's exactly what I propose, Usgnus. Alai 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must now admit I'm confused. What exactly is being proposed here? Cheers --Pak21 09:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly (by me, at least): a single Category:Warhammer stubs, fed by both the existing {{Warhammer-40,000-stub}} (not renaming this, per Amalas's original suggestion), and a new {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} (or perhaps that should be {{Warhammer-Fantasy-stub}} or {{WarhammerFantasy-stub}}, actually). Worst comes to the worst, you'd still be able to see the 40K-only stubs with what links here. Alai 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given there are ~80 40,000 stubs and ~120 wargame stubs, of which ~40 are Fantasy stubs (thus meaning there are ~80 non-Fantasy wargame stubs), I still don't quite see what the advantage is of merging the Fantasy stubs in with the 40,000 stubs: it will be just as hard for Fantasy editors to find them in a combined Warhammer stubs category as it is currently, and harder for 40,000 editors to find what they want. Why not just create {{warhammer-fantasy-stub}} (or whatever you want to call it) feeding wargame stubs, and leave everything else unchanged? Apologies if I'm being more stupid than usual here... Cheers --Pak21 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. No need for the extra "warhammer" layer. Just create {{WarhammerFantasy-stub}} and feed it into Category:Wargame stubs. When there gets to be 65 or so stubs, create Category:Warhammer Fantasy stubs, a subcategory of "Wargame stubs". This way has no effect on the Warhammer 40,000 folks and helps the Warhammer Fantasy editors somewhat. --Usgnus 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Pak, the WarhammerFantasys are too small for a separate category at present. There is no separate category for them at the time being. If you don't see an advantage to them having a stub type (albeit shared), then fair enough, I've present such argument for it as there appears to me to be. Usgnus, what "extra layer"? I'm proposing a single stub category for both (with "upmerged" templates), not an additional stub type. Alai 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The "layer" is that Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 stubs are being commingled in the Warhammer category. I think we should mix the Warhammer fantasy stubs with the Wargames stubs instead of with the Warhammer 40,000 stubs. Have the Warhammer fantasy template feed Wargames and have the existing Warhammer 40,000 template feed the existing Warhammer 40,000 category. But that's just my compromise suggestion. --Usgnus 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have no objection to upmerging in that direction either (though I still don't get the "layers" argument, sorry). Note, however, that if there are any WHFRP stubs out there, that would be confusing (and indeed incorrect) in those cases. Alai 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's just me. A layer is the way I visualize it. I think of the stub templates as a layer. As for the issue at hand, if Pak21 is happy with your way, I have no objections. --Usgnus 00:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rave-stub}}

I have started to create many stubs related to rave, jungle and happy hardcore musicians but the only stub that I can use is an electronic music stub yet there are many types of electronic music that are very difrent from each other, I would only use the electronic music stub for electronica music and techno but a rave stub for rave and music like that. All hail cale 12:22 AM July 30th

  • If this is made, it should be {{rave-music-stub}} to stay within normal naming conventions. Before that though, are there 60 articles here? Also, is it clear what exactly counts as "rave music"? I'm certainly not a music expert, but I've never heard that term used before. --fuzzy510 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{degrassi-stub}}

I recently created WikiProject Degrassi, and was wondering, since they is a good amount of Degrassi articles, and many new ones will start out as stubs, that it would be a good idea if there was a Degrassi stub. andrew 08:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{carnivora-stub}}, {{ungulate-stub}}

Of the first 120 mammal stubs (out of 689), 38 are about ungulates and 30 are about members of order Carnivora (excluding Pinnipeds). assuming these represent anything near the proportions within the category, this should cut the mammal-stub group down by half by removing approx. 218 ungulates and 172 carnivora animals. Eli Falk 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{invention-stub}} and {{U.S. Patent-stub}}

Wish I could get through all the volumes of instructions, etc., but this is a mountain that should have been a molehill. In plain Enlgish, there are no stubs for inventions and U.S. patents, thus I suggest both. Meanwhile, Jaap Penraat's page on Wikipedia mentions it is a stub about architects. Hardly! This man was noted for his work in the resistance (or underground) in Holland during the Nazi occupation. I hope I am signing off the right way. Yvonnefitz 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a good reason for that - most inventions are things which are automatically covered by other stub templates. A new tool will gain tool-stub. A new industrial process will get an industry-stub. Something invented as an improvement to a car will get an auto-stub, and so on. As for u.S.Patents, the same applies (if we were to have such a stub it would be US-patent-stub, BTW). I've fixed the Jaap Penraat stub message BTW. Architect was right, it it isn't the main thing he's known for, so it needed an extra template. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Putting an extra stub on every device wouldn't be be useful. Extra categories should do the trick. But if there enough articles for it, {{Patent-law-stub}} might be OK. --Sbluen 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{whisky-stub}} / Category:Whisky stubs

I propose {{whisky-stub}}, as a daughter to Category:Drink stubs and a sister to {{tea-stub}}, {{coffee-stub}}, {{wine-stub}} and {{beer-stub}}. The main category could do with splitting at 645 articles. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"drink stubs" +whiskey -whisky" gives 38 hits, googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"drink stubs" -whisky +whiskey" gives 40 hits. Only a few hits, like Acquired taste and Half and half, do not fit this restubbing, but that still leaves us with well over 70 articles for the new stub category. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

                     drink-stub
                 alcoholic-drink-stub                              tea-stub     ...
distilled-drink-stub    wine-stub    beer-stub
--Usgnus 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I wasn't clear. My preference is to omit the alcoholic-drink category, but I illustrated your suggestion as something I can accept. --Usgnus

{{disney-song-stub}}

As there are Disney releated items in this stub categorey, I was wonderif it would be a good idea to start one regarding the songs on Disney, as Disney has heaps of songs and for those who do start pages on them can add this to the bottom of it to be more prescise. Drakehellman

{{ice-stub}} or similar

The recently started WikiProject Glaciers created a glacier-stub which is now on SFD, since we don't normally split by landform type. However, it got me thinking... Category:Geology stubs does need splitting, and there are probably a good number of stubs relating to glaciology, glaciation, and the ice ages there (definitely enough since there's a WikiProject - I'd estimate about 45-50). I'd like to suggest an {{ice-stub}} - preferably under a better name - to cover these topics. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Methodism-stub}}/Category:Methodism stubs

There is a series of articles on Methodism, but yet no stub for Methodism per se. This is unfortunate, because, despite the current virtual integration of the fundamentalist churches in the US, there remain significant differences between the various churches. Also, I believe that members of this church would be much more likely to add to articles relating to their church if they wouldn't have to sift through all the Christian denomination stubs to find them. Badbilltucker 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken the liberty of hyphenating your suggested template name, per the stub naming guidelines. I'm a tad confused with the use of "fundamentalist" to be synonymous with "Methodist" -- they ain't. This would be a coherent enough stub type, if it also meets the size criteria: how many such stubs are there at present? Alai 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem I see is how broad should the scope be, given the intermixture of Methodism with the other strands of Protestantism. It would be helpful if there were a WikiProject Methodism to give some shape to the scope. As for "fundamentalist", while not arch-conservative (as a whole), Methodists still believe in the Bible as being divinely inspired rather than merely a nice collection of historical and philosophical writings, as some of the more ecumenical denominations do. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not all Methodists are fundamentalists, in any of the usual senses, and certainly by no means are all fundamentalists, Methodists. This may speak to the scoping point: I assumed the intent was, self-indentified Methodists, denoms with "Methodist" in their title, etc, rather than attempting a monophyletic sub-taxon of Protestantism. Alai 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My only intention in linking Methodism with fundamentalism in my original statement was to point out that while the so-called fundamentalist churches, which all adhere to the five fundamentals, may have recently been, to varying degrees, downplaying their real differences, those real differences do exist, and that it makes no sense to have them all grouped together into a non-denominational "Christianity." Also, the people and articles that I would include in this group would be primarily those who are clearly and undeniably linked to the Methodist faith, by virtue of being bishops, ministers, members of congregations, whatever. As for how many there might be now, I think that it would be rather difficult to point out a specific number, although I have no doubt that it is substantial. Also, I think that there would probably be much more interest in creating a Methodist WikiProject if Methodists were to see how much work there was to do in their own field. The same would probably hold for the other major Christian denominations, as well. Badbilltucker 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes much less sense to split them between "fundamentalist" and "non-fundamentalist" however, given how problematic that would be. On the new type as proposed (as I understand it, i.e. without reference to fundamentalism, but to self-described Methodism): if you can't confirm that this would meet the size guidelines, I'll have to oppose. Creating a stub type to encourage a wikiproject to create more stubs to justify the stub type is a little too circular (and uncertain) for my liking. Alai 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no intention of trying to encourage a project. However, I have on me a list of some 200 names and short biographical pieces of prominent Methodist clergy, most of whom are not so far as I can tell already mentioned, as well as some additional names from a Who's Who book. It was my intention to create the stub so that it could be used on these stubs. However, as it seems that the creation of a new stub type before the fact is unlinkely, I shall attempt to create the stubs and then call for a stub template later. Badbilltucker 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I suggest in that circumstance is that you create the template, only, feeding at present into the next likely parent (I assume, Category:Christianity stubs), to facilitate tagging these articles as they're identified and/or created. Once that hits around 60, a separate category should then be a formality. Alai 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Seismology-stub}} and Category:Seismology stubs

Category:Geology stubs has almost 1000 articles and is way too big. Category:Seismology has 75 stubs and is good enough for a stub category. --Sbluen 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-museum-stub}} and Category:United States museum stubs

Museum stubs and US structure stubs are both oversized. A rudimentary search reveals over 122 results. Crystallina 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean country stubs

It would be a good idea if Wikipedia had more stubs relating to Caribbean countries. Stub coverage of the region is somewhat under-represented on this site, and there are somehow too many pages that fall into Category:Caribbean stubs, as well as Category:Caribbean geography stubs and, to a lesser extent, Category:Caribbean people stubs.

Below are some of the suggested stubs by country, along with accompanying categories:

(We need not go into detail with those for Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guyana, Belize and the Cayman Islands, as these territories already have stub categories.)

It would be a very helpful thing if we put more effort into Caribbean topics on this site, and do grateful service to residents of the countries in question. Hopefully, I will help create more articles that fall into any of those categories, and possibly some more Wikipedians like Guettarda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and CaribDigita (talk · contribs · count) can help me out on this task. In the meantime, I will try to asign existing Caribbean stub articles to their new places. Tell me if that proposal is a little too much for WP to handle. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on several grounds. First of all, the two categories you mention are pretty small by stub standards - we use 600 stubs as a standard for splitting and often categories are far bigger than that before they are split. These two categories have only 610 combined and Category:Caribbean stubs has only 214 stubs. Second, none of these countries yet has enough stubs to make separate categories worthwhile (in the case of the geography stubs, I only counted them yesterday, and only the Bahamas and Jamaica break 50 and neither of them comes close to the 65 we use for splits. Montserrat has seven. What's more several of the names you suggest are against the stub template naming guidelines (USVirginIslands-stub, TurksandCaicos-stub, SaintVincent-stub, etc etc). "The Alai solution" of templates feeding back into the Caribbean stubs category is possible (indeed this already happens with Jamaica-geo-stub), but separate categories? No. As to putting more effort into Caribbean topics, some of us are already doing that - I know several people at WP:WSS who have added quite a bit of information to Caribbean articles, as well as creating quite a number of Caribbean stubs themselves. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose separate categories, as per Grutness; support "the Alai solution" of upmerged templates, as per, well me, I suppose. Though please note that that should be {{StKitts-stub}}, etc, per the naming guidelines, and oppose bvi-stub as failing the TLA-test (BVI links to a disambiguation page), being too cryptic, and again not complying with the naming guidelines. IMO the best way to attract attention to an underrepresented topic is to flag up a need to populate the existing types: keeping them in a single category of reasonable size means at least that editors of related topics are likely to notice them. Splitting them up into nano-stub-types makes them easier to ignore, both for populating and expanding them -- hence the size guidelines in the first place. Alai 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StKitts or SaintKitts? I'd suggest the following names as being more in keeping with the naming guidelines: As above, except -
Grutness...wha? 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest covering our bases on the Saint/St thing with redirects, and likewise a redirect from {{Dominica-stub}}. Alai 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um...I don't follow. I've no objction to a Dominica-stub template... what are you planning to redirect it to? Grutness...wha? 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I'm getting my Antilleses muddled. (Now actually, an Category:Antilles stubs holding category might not be too bad an idea (or at least, a less-bad idea than the proposal). Alai 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great suggestion, it makes sense. It better breaks up that mass tangle of 'any' and 'all-kind-of' stubs that have just been thrown into Caribbean stubs. Instead it puts them into their relivent country for better ease of collaberation-projects on an island by island, or country by country basis. CaribDigita 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the stub size guidelines, and my comments above. Alai 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be a waste of space on the list. The categories should be enough. --Sbluen 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We need more material about the Caribbean, sure, but creating around 20 hardly used templates looks like the wrong way to go. Valentinian (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Markup-languages-stub}} and Category:Markup language stubs

This stub template would be for articles in Category:Markup languages. It would help to reduce the size of Category:Computer language stubs, which has about 700 articles. --Sbluen 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Category:Markup languages is the largest subcategory of Category:Computer languages that is not highly ambiguous or questionable. --Sbluen 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm neglecting Dr Phil's excellent advice on grammar, and failing to put verbs in my sentences. I meant to ask, what is the likely population? If it's >= 60, I'm in, as it is at least coherently scoped. Alai 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were asking if the stub category was likely to have population done by others. I looked on the stubsense page and saw {{Compu-stub}} used 36 times, {{Software-stub}} used 32 times, and {{Compu-lang-stub}} 31 times and a total of 142 stub articles. --Sbluen 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a little false-pos-prone, but if it helps at all with the compu-stubs and software-stubs, I say go for it, and hopefully it'll be at least thereabouts. Alai 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek Olympic medalist stubs

There's 55 of these just by double-stubcat-membership, so I assume this will be viable with a bit more scratching around. Oversized parent. Is it the axis we want to split the medalists on, however? (As opposed to say, by sport/event.) Alai 06:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German World War II stubs

80 articles in Category:German military stubs and Category:World War II stubs. Oversized parent. Alai 06:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Support Another good stub type. --Sbluen 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see a few problems with this one. 1) A lot of new military templates have recently been passed but not yet created. A battle somewhere in the USSR could *potentially* be tagged with both {{Germany-battle-stub}}, {{Russia-battle-stub}}, {{Soviet-stub}} and {{WWII-battle-stub}} (in reality, it'll probably end up being tagged with the three -battle templates). I'm not sure more templates will be a good idea at the moment. 2) The name doesn't specify that it is not to be used e.g. on biographical articles on civilians (which would probably use {{Nazi-stub}} + a second template.) Valentinian (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking down the list, they seem to be more military units than anything else, though there's the odd person and operation and the like in there too. I'm open to suggestions as to what to do with them, and/or if you tweak the stub tags (or the list), then the 'bot won't get 'em (if and when I do this). Alai 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bird paleontology stubs

There's 85 stubs doubled into Category:Bird stubs and Category:Paleontology stubs, which I can only presume makes them... (Both parents are oversized.) Alai 01:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found only 37 stubs that were almost all double-stubbed in Category:Prehistoric birds. The stub category should be Category:Ornithological paleontology stubs if the stub is created. --Sbluen 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, especially given that there's no Category:Ornithological paleontology? Wouldn't Category:Prehistoric bird stubs be a more logical alternative, if anything? (I'm not really getting the "if" part, though.) Alai 13:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compassionate Communication

this is a proposal for a entry on Non-Violent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D under Social SCience, Psychology; this blurb is already on wilipedia: Marshall Rosenberg's model of Compassionate Communication also known as Non-Violent Communication (NVC)[1] makes the distinction between universal human needs (what sustains and motivates human life) and specific strategies used to meet these needs. In contrast to Maslow, Rosenberg's model does not place needs in a hierarchy.[2] In this model, feelings are seen as indicators of when human needs are met or unmet. One of the intended outcomes of Rosenberg's model is to support humans in developing an awareness of what life-sustaining needs are arising within them and others moment by moment so that they may more effectively and compassionately find strategies to meet their own needs as well as contribute to meeting the needs of others. I will add to this from the cnvc.org website if you create the subject category...thanks...I don't know how to do this. bjoybead@hotmail.com

This sounds like a proposal for a stub article: you don't need this page for that, just click on the link, and edit away... Alai 07:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that new editors (those without usernames, at least) cannot create new aricles themselves... If you have a username, reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Create new articles and the links around it will be useful; if you don't have a username then Wikipedia:Articles for creation is the place you need to head. Grutness...wha? 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Festival-stub}} in need of splitting

The number of stubs marked with festival-stub is well into four figures - it needs some form of split fairly soon. I haven't counted them up, but at a quick glance, it looks like the following would help to relieve the burden considerably:

Any thoughts or further possibilities are most welcome! Grutness...wha? 05:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Health-org-stub}} / Category:Health organization stubs

This is a proposal for a Health organization stub. This would be a child of Category:Health stubs and Category:Organization stubs. Currently we have on Wikipedia Category:Medical organization stubs, but as per Category:Health sciences, Category:Medicine is just one specialized branch of this field. This leaves many subjects outside of the scope of Medicine and Medical organization stubs, such as public health, health promotion, and more. This new Health organization stub would fill the present void by entering the stub system as a child of Category:Health stubs, and having a child of its own in Category:Medical organization stubs. Below is a list of 65 articles where this proposed stub is presently needed:

  1. Action on Smoking and Health
  2. Afghan Ministry of Health
  3. American Diabetes Association
  4. Bloomberg School of Public Health
  5. Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
  6. Brazilian Society for Health Informatics
  7. Brittle Bone Society
  8. Canadian Blood Services
  9. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
  10. Canadian Diabetes Association
  11. Canadian Health Coalition
  12. Canadian Health Network
  13. Catholic Health Association of India
  14. Canadian National Institute for the Blind
  15. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
  16. Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
  17. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
  18. Department of Essential Drugs and Medicines
  19. Department of Health (Hong Kong)
  20. Department of Health and Ageing (Australia)
  21. Eating Disorders Association
  22. Family Health International
  23. Federal Ministry for Health and Social Security (Germany)
  24. Florida Keys Health Fairs
  25. Harvard School of Public Health
  26. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  27. Health Alliance International
  28. Health department
  29. Health, Welfare and Food Bureau
  30. Inflammatory Breast Cancer Association
  31. Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire
  32. Institut de veille sanitaire
  33. Kidney Foundation of Canada
  34. Metropolitan Board of Health
  35. Migraine Action Association
  36. Migraine Trust
  37. Ministry of Health (China)
  38. Ministry of Health (Denmark)
  39. Ministry of Health (Manitoba)
  40. Ministry of Health (Singapore)
  41. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Ontario)
  42. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan)
  43. Ministry of Health Promotion (Ontario)
  44. Ministry of Public Health (Netherlands)
  45. Ministry of the Interior and Health (Denmark)
  46. National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians
  47. National Asthma Campaign
  48. National Non-Smoking Week
  49. Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
  50. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services
  51. Pain Relief Foundation
  52. Pan American Health Organization
  53. Public Health - Seattle & King County
  54. Public Health Agency of Canada
  55. Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
  56. Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute
  57. School of Rural Public Health
  58. SingHealth
  59. Society for Health Education and Health Promotion Specialists
  60. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare
  61. The George Institute for International Health
  62. Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS
  63. UC Berkeley School of Public Health
  64. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
  65. World Federation for Mental Health

--Kurieeto 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a rescope of the medical organizations stub is the best choice. Medicine is a specialized sub-field of health, and so it makes sense to have a category for organizations of the broader field of the latter. Hospitals are tricky I agree, I intentionally omitted them from my list above. I would leave that for Wikipedians to decide if they fit best as health organizations or medical organizations. As another example of how health is distinct from medicine, one does not need medicine to be in a state of good mental health. Therefore, a mental health organization may not touch on medicine at all in its programs. It would therefore be most appropriate to classify this organization as a health organization, and not a medical organization. I believe the above listed articles are most appropriately termed "health organizations". Kurieeto 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing your "most appropriately termed" assertion, or that "health" is indeed a broader term; however, you haven't really addressed my point at all. I'm suggesting rescoping to include both, explicitly. If "health" is adequately inclusive, then by all means use that as the name of the rescoped category, or "medicine and health", whichever (though keep the existing template in addition to any others). What I'm not seeing is any particular upside to having two separate categories if the best that can be done to separate their scopes is to say "leave that for Wikipedians to decide". If you're not able to give a straightforward scoping statement that would cover such basic cases as hospitals, I'm going to have to oppose the creation of separate categories in a way that seems highly likely to lead to some confusion and considerable inconsistency between the two. Alai 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by leaving it for Wikipedians to decide is that I don't profess to have the definitive answer of if hospitals are most properly health organizations or medical organizations, and that I would follow whatever consensus arises from any future debate on the matter. My personal belief is that hospitals should currently be categorized as health organizations, because their place in the hierarchy on Wikipedia is currently as follows: Category:Hospitals -> Category:Healthcare -> Category:Health sciences -> Category:Health. Beyond that, stub category structure should defer to the category structure of the main namespace, and so an appropriate article for a {{Health-org-stub}} would be any small article in Category:Health organizations that is not also under Category:Medical organizations. There needs to be a broader-level stub that the contents of other sub-cats of Category:Health organizations can be tagged with, such as Category:Nursing organizations, Category:Dental organizations, and Category:Disability organizations. If Category:Health organizations belongs in the encyclopedia distinct from Category:Medical organizations, as it currently does, then I believe this should be deferred to and a stub for this category be created given the number of appropriate articles listed above. Kurieeto 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're apparently talking past each other: I keep asking why why need two separate types, and you keep telling me why we need a broader type (to which I repeat yet again, broaden the existing type). That fact that you're in effect arguing that most of the current population of {{med-org-stub}} are actually health-orgs should really underline what a lot of work this would be, for no concrete benefit, and indeed likely detrimental outcome. This "defer to the permanent" categories line of argument is being deployed independent of any reasonable rationale for why this would be appropriate: "there's a permanent category and 60 possible stubs" would lead to us creating about 100,000 stub categories. Please review Wikipedia:Perfect stub article#New stub categories, and rationalise your proposal, or better still, address my counter-proposal, in those terms. Alai 00:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Brisbane-suburb-stub}} / Category:Brisbane suburb stubs

I created this template before realising that the process on this page existed. I have counted 71 stubs listed at Category:Queensland geography stubs which could be assigned to this new category and template. There are more than 71 because there are several which I missed. There are also a significant number of red links at List of Brisbane suburbs which will fall into this category. This category and template will become associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Brisbane There are currently over 800 stubs in the Queensland geography stubs category and this would remove some of those and assign them to the new category. -- Adz|talk 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh. As previously mentioned to WikiProject Brisbane, we would be happy to make a {{Brisbane-geo-stub}} when one is needed. We did that at the same time as other city-related stubs were changed from the incorrectly named XX-suburb-stub style. A Brisbane-geo-stub would cover both suburbs and other geographical features directly relating to Brisbane (such as parks, hills, streams, etc). This stub now needs to go to SFD so that it can be changed over. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom Roman Catholic parish stubs, or some variant thereon?

I notice that there's 80-odd double-stubbed with RC-stub, and with UK-hist-stub; there's also 80-odd with RC-stub and with England-stub. And funnily enough, most of them are the same articles, and many of them are very, very short -- so much so that it's not entirely clear if the scope is the parish church as such, or the parish as a whole (I'll assume the latter). The gratuitous triple-stubbing should be fixed regardless, but I'm uncertain if the best solution here is a new stub type, or mass deletion (or listification and redirecting, perhaps). Alai 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ouch. That's about as close as you can get to content-free. Listify and redirect. --CComMack (t&#149;c) 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with you - but this isn't really the forum for such votes (AfD is third door down on the left). What I will say, though, is that parishes should surely get county-geo-stubs rather than england-stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfD isn't the right venue for merge discussions (either). Do we really want them as geo-stubs? We could end up with heckuvalotta different (and of course inconsistent, in some cases with the counties themselves) subdivisions rattling around the same categories that way. Alai 07:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be bold: listify and redirect. A clear case of where integration makes sense, and you don't even have to take it to AFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seemingly these are being expanded (if very slowly), but their scope seems more concerned with the churches than the parishes. I'm inclined to re-tag as {{RC-church-stub}}, though splitting off {{UK-RC-church-stub}} might be prudent, too. Alai 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Disney-film-stub}}/Category:Disney stubs

There are some Disney films that could belong in many other categories. Note that some Disney films are for adults as well and don't have to be in the childrens film stub category. My proposal is that I create a Disney film stub so that we can combine all of the films related to Disney. --walkingencyclopedia 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Podcast-stub}} / Category:Podcasting stubs

With the number of podcast stubs increasing I feel it would be useful to have a Podcasting stub. A Wikipedia search for podcasts shows many results. PodShow.com contains many examples of encyclopedia worthy podcasts. Several include: The Random Show, Geek Brief TV, Daily Source Code, Pacific Coast Hellway, Tikibar, This Week In Tech, 7th Son, Scott Sigler (Podcast novel writer), Yeast Radio, and Rocketboom. Many of these articles need attention and therefore a {{Podcast-stub}}. Djsteen 23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was created before, and deleted in February, so I'd like strong evidence of numerical viability (and ideally, some evidence of it actually being needed). Likewise, we've had unproposed stub types for blogs, and even for "vlogs", that have seen very little actual use. Can we at least squish them all together to make one good(ish) one? Alai 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is what the {{Internet-stub}} is for. Djsteen 08:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out this seems to be a little more populous than I'd have guessed: StubSense finds 47. I'd still prefer a slight upscope, if this can be done in a coherent manner, merging with the existing (though pending deletion for being too small) {{blog-stub}}. Is there a recognised umbrella term for blogging, videoblogging and podcasting? Alai 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about {{internet-bcast-stub}}, or {{internet-publish-stub}}? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds plausible to me, if a little hard to bound precisely. Alai 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recording stubs

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobj7 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television biography stub split

There may be some overlap between some of these, obviously. Alai 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides the usual UK/British and US/American rant, there's the fact that Television personalities is a subcat of Television presenters, so unless you factored that already into the above, I see no reason to have both. I'm not sanguine about splitting actors by medium as it has led to a good deal of double stubbing with film and TV to date, enough that I think screen actors would probably be a better cat there, and the same with the writers. On the other hand, TV and radio have a good deal of overlap in the journalist category, altho moreso over in the UK than the US, since they still have a significant amount of radio journalism thanks to the BBC. Anyway, despite the likely heavy double stubbing, given that it follows what the perm cats are doing, support Category:Television writer stubs, Category:Television producer stubs, Category:Television journalist stubs, and Category:Television actor stubs. Defer the four others for now and bug WP:TV to decide whether they want presenters, personalities, or both and what the difference is supposed to be. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those counts are totals, so the personalities would be subtracted from the presenters if both were created, though on the face of it both would appear to be separately viable, the latter to the tune of 147. Bear in mind that these are all already tagged as particular to TV, so there's no issue of additional stubbing at least in these cases (future use I can hardly legislate for). I've no objection to a screen actor combined category; my earlier suggestion for the large US overlap is tantamount to the same thing, but I think separate categories in addition are still useful. Alai 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English football internationals

I'm drawing thin on this one as far as the perm-cats are concerned. Further bright ideas welcome. Alai 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to do what we've done with other sports -
And have these irrespective of whether the players have played internatonally. At least there should be permanent cats for these. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the subcats of Category:Football (soccer) players by position. Doing a count by those, I get:
Which really just proves they're very undercategorised... There would also be a certain logic to parent types by position, too. Alai 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of stubs we have, this looks like severe undercategorisation. What's more, since you'd logically expect several defenders, midfieldes and strikers per goalkeeper, if you have 32 goalies the rest should all romp past the threshold. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with these, and also create the non-stub parent categories at the same time. However to match Category:English footballers and Category:English football biography stubs The cats should use English and not England. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was carelessly generalising from the international cats, and/or from G's suggestion. Updated. Alai 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whoops. good point. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems like these were sadly neglected, and the category is way out of control, I'm going to go ahead and make these by position, since that seems to be what people agreed on. --fuzzy510 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Poland-sport-stub}}/Category:Poland sport stubs

317 stub articles found under Category:Sport in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three things.
  1. We don't have any approved per country sport stubs.
  2. How many would fit in a possible {{Poland-sport-bio-stub}} or the existing {{Poland-footy-bio-stub}}?
  3. Did you get your count from Stub Sense? I just now did a query on Category:Channel Islands and got back a list that included 313 Russia stubs!
I'd prefer that a sport biography stub be created first. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a template for Argentina, but it is listed on SFD for renaming. I too would prefer a -bio-stub (for starters anyway). Caerwine, you're right that parts of the toolserver database is still ...... up. Until that's been fixed, stub sense will from time to time come up with something completely off the mark. Valentinian (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sf-char-stub}}/Category:Science-fiction character stubs

There are few hundreds sf-stubs and over a thousand fictonal character stubs. A child category for both seems only logical.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fict-stub}}/Category:Fiction stubs

While category Category:Fiction is not to big, I recently stumbled upon quite a few articles which are stubs but don't necessarily fall under {{Fict-char-stub}}, {{{fict-location-stub}} and {{sf-stub}}. Not to mention that the first two need a parent category for ease of sorting (are there any other fict-stubs I missed? Consider ficitonal vehicles, items, timelines and other such items. Many of them are not tagged as stubs, so Stub Sense is not best to use here, but the reachness of sf-stub category suggest that its parent category would surely not be wasted, especially as most of literary genres are missing their own stubs at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magazine stubs split

Parent is seven pages. As with a number of these proposals, there's two distinct axes of split here, we needn't necessarily go with both at once. Alai 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all as I'm currently slogging through the {{lit-stub}}s... ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I discussed with Peg off-page, my counts above seem to be somewhat inflated, so I've just gone with the broader categories. However, some of these are very broad... If people can uncover more of these, it might be a good idea to revive the somewhat more meaningful and narrow categories. (I've had more comments on my bot's talk page about the art-mag- stub type than about the rest of its 10,000 edits combined...) Alai 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plant stubs split

Don't blame me for the names, blame the perm-cats, and Linnaeus. Alai 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier to split only taxonomically and not geographically, i.e. take Category:North American flora stubs and Category:Australian flora stubs from the list.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medicine stubs split

There seems to be undersorting to some existing categories in this case too (I had a look for blue-links this time). Alai 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for stub types here. It'd be important to cooperate. For example we have neuroscience-stub, why would we need neurology-stub? We have anatomy-stub and zoology-stub. Why do we need human or animal anatomy-stub? Anyway good ideas. :) NCurse work 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The neuro- one may indeed be duplicative, or substantially overlapping. However, the existing anatomy stub type I'm well aware of, which is why I didn't include the 5 or 6 hundred articles that are in or under the Category:Anatomy category, and currently tagged as med-stub. (Said categorisation may or may not be indicative of primary notability, of course.) Not to mention the small detail that that type is itself significantly oversized, so a split into human and animal anatomy, as with the perm-cats, seems a pretty basic step forward. At any rate, at eight pages, several hundred articles ought to be hauled out of there one way or another. Alai 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will be an enormous job, but I start to create them. Any help is welcomed. :) NCurse work 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sure I follow all the objections above, but at least some progress is being made. You may be correct about coming of these being duplicative, but at any rate they may be evidence of significant undersorting to those types. And if we're not to split along the lines of the permanent categories, then how? Note that it's still seven listing pages, so a long way to go. At any rates, I further suggest:
  • Category:Medical treatment stubs 117

You'd think that'd be larger, but what do I know... Alai 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Song stubs split

From the singer, to the song. The last might be a tad on the broad side, but I've working with what I have, here... Methinks a little bit of undersorting at work here. Alai 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{Canada-icehockey-bio-stub}}

As expected, splitting the ice hockey bios made this one oversized, and I haven't even split them 100% thoroughly. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to split this one, being unfamiliar with ice hockey. Suggestions? Crystallina 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or

See Category:Ice hockey personnel --Usgnus 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The latter, please (or else split by "era", or something along those lines). By province is very likely to be problematic: people tend to be mobile, professional sportspeople especially so. Alai 07:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pipe-band-stub}}

This is a very under developed area of Wikipedia, but there are about 50 stubs that would fit into this catagory, and they are asscociated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pipe Bands. Pipe bands are extremely similar to eachother no matter what part of the world they are from, which would make an inependent subcatagory of the band stub more appropriate than a nation based band stub. --Musaabdulrashid 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote: After looking at Category:Pipe bands, I found a total 31 articles that would even fit this (assuming all of the articles I counted were actually stubs). I know there's a WikiProject, but I think you're going to have to find/create a few more articles before this gets approved. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Māori-stub}}

For Māori customs, issues, and people. I found 65 such stubs without much trouble, 34 from {{NZ-stub}} and the rest from browsing Category:Māori. -- Avenue 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to bias on this one, but there probably are enough... But I'd suggest using the form without the macron ({{Maori-stub}}), simply because we usually avoid accents and diacriticals in stub templates (not all keyboards are set up to use them easily). It might even be better to make it {{NZ-ethno-stub}} (although New Zealand is a special case given its lack of pre-European diversity), to avoid any potential edit-warring re: Moriori articles. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I saw an article related to the Maori earlier today and I think I marked it as {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}, which is presumably incorrect now that I think about it. StubSense reports 68 stubs. [8] Support {{NZ-ethno-stub}} ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually what prompted me to suggest this. :) I still prefer {{Maori-stub}} because of its tighter focus, similar to {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}. Admittedly the Moriori are an issue, although probably a pretty minor one. But I'd accept {{NZ-ethno-stub}} if that's what others prefer. -- Avenue 12:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd be inclined to go with NZ-ethno- as the most general, and conforming to the established pattern, but add redirects from both the other orthographies. Alai 03:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Musical-stub}} or {{Musical-play-stub}}

For all those small-time musicals and small-time musical stub articles, we need to tag them out instead of merely calling them {{play-stub}}, when they are so much more. Jfingers88 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Powerplant-stub}}

StubSense reports 70 in {{US-struct-stub}} alone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Palace-stub}}

StubSense reports 45 in {{Austria-stub}}, 19 in {{Euro-struct-stub}} and I count another 40 total in several next countries-stubs or contry-struct-stubs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Castle-stub}}

While 18 of the StubSense findings overlap with {{Fort-stub}}, I think Castle-stub can be a good subcat of Fort-stub (not all forts are castles, but all castles are forts). Note that we have {{England-castle-stub}}, {{Scotland-castle-stub}} and {{Wales-castle-stub}}, and that stub sence found 37 hits in {{Euro-struct-stub}}, and about 60 total in Japan, France, UK, Poland and MEeast-struct stubs alone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's a certain inevitable logic to this, give the existing sub-types. (BTW, not all castles are really fortifications, many are post-med ostentation that wouldn't withstand a half-dozen cheesed-off peasant, but close enough for categorisation purposes, I suppose.) Alai 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Monument-stub}}

With redirect from {{Memorial-stub}}. I just discovered stubscan and started using it on some categories which I thought would deserve stub. Full (4k) scan of Category:Monuments and memorials revelas 86 articles in {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}}, 39 in {{Archaeology-stub}}, 26 in {{Protected-area-stub}} and dozens of others. Some are not structures, I think we easily have more then 60.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{City-stub}}, {{Town-stub}} and {{Village-stub}}

While the stub to indicate articles about cities would be useful, it is also needed simply to serve as a parent category for such stubs like {{Quebec-City-Stub}}, {{NYC-stub}}, {{Warsaw-geo-stub}}. Beacause there is no parent category, there is also apparenty no naming scheme for such stubs. I think they should have 'city' prefix and belong in the 'geo' family, just as struct-stubs do. We may also consider {{Village-stub}} as a logical extension, and perhaps {{Town-stub}} as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do we need a parent category for cities? Splitting by city, rather than larger region, is the exception, not the rule, and has generally been done by a wikiproject, or unilaterally, rather than WSS ever coming to any conclusion they were systematically necessary. No need at all for parents of villages and towns. We absolutely don't need these templates: as next to no location stub categories are split on those lines, these would either be double-stubbed onto tens of thousands of articles, or applied in a haphazard fashion with some articles tagged with both, some by location, and some by size: a nightmarish vista. The terms are also used completely different from place to place, making confusion a near-certainty. As no-one realistically has "all towns" as an area of interest or expertise, they're also useless for expansion purposes. Strong oppose. Alai 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Why do we need a parent category for cities?" If for nothing else, then for order. Let's say I am teaching urban science and I want to assign my students to work on city articles. Alas, although there is Category:Cities I can't easily find related stubs, unless I know about the existence of the sub senser, which is rather unlikely for most people out there. Unless you are going to argue that Category:Cities should be deleted, I see no reason why it should not be accompanied by its stub category. Last but not least, Stub sense idicates huge potential for this category, especially suggesting many national subcategories with {{Cz-geo-stub}} being the leader with over 200 hundred cities, Brazil second with 127...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's quite remarkably fallacious to suggest that I can't oppose a stub category without calling for the deletion of the corresponding permanant category. Indeed, if every category had a stub counterpart, it would be utterly unmanageable. The "huge potential" is exactly my point: huge population, useless axis of split (as I think the contrived nature of your example of expansion along same demonstrates). Playing around with StubSense on random categories is all well and good, but ideally splits that get us some way along our to do list would be handy, rather than just re-shuffling articles that are already sorted entirely sensibly, i.e. by country and by where necessary by region. Alai 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY AND VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE. There is absolutely no reason why these stubs should exist or even be contemplated. Aboput 75% of geo-stubs are villages, towns, and cities - to have a separate stub for them would amount to creating a template for use by some 80,000 articles all of which are far better split by their location. To do so on a subnational basis, which would be the other option, would drain the country-specific geo-stubs to the point where many of them would be no longer viable. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, especially the plethora of three different stubs, with no clear or universal guideline between what gets which one. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. These are way too vague and we split by geography anyway. Valentinian (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected area split

I missed one clear possibility here: Category:Australian protected area stubs would have 115 stubs, and scratch one oversized parent. A very large number of the remainder are in the US, and will have to be split soon enough enough, though. Several US states seem to be "bubbling under"; if we split by US region, we'd get a pretty massive US-west sub-cat immediately. I'm more inclinded to suggest splitting the US by type of prot-area: for example, we have a bootleg {{NPS-stub}} which fails the "TLA redirect" test for ambiguity, and which seems not to have fully sorted all the national parks in the protected areas, so I'll propose a {{US-NationalPark-stub}} to take both those groups. Likewise for assorted other types: I'll hopefully be back shortly with some more counts. Alai 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC) OK, as threatened, I'm going to formally propose all of the following:[reply]

I'll also mention the following, in case there's a large undercount, or someone wants to do some "lumping together":

Hopefully someone with a clearer idea of any additional structure and hierarchy here will chime in and clarify. Alai 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems fine to me...only I wouldn't make a {{US-NationalPark-site-stub}} since only about 55 out of over 400 units managed by the National Park Service are actually National Parks...the rest are "sites" that are differently named such as National Historical Park, National Battlefield...etc. The rest seems fine to me...but I'm not entrenched on any aspect of this so whatever works best is fine with me.--MONGO 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, United States National Site stubs category should be seperate since I believe that some of these sites are not managed by the National Park Service. National Grasslands are all managed by the U.S. Forest service, and National Recreation areas are managed by numerous agencies so they could get a stub I suppose. Wilderness areas number about 500 or more, and most of them are still yet to be written, but the vast majority of them are stubby. Same is true for National Wildlife Refuges both in terms of number and the quality of the articles. Most areas managed by the National Park Service that have articles are not stubs anymore...since they generally have a couple of paragraphs, a picture and references. Please let me or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas folks know what comes of this so we can properly link to categories so they can be cleaned up...thanks.--MONGO 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By request of the creator of the NPS template, we went with the name {{US-NationalParkService-stub}} rather than the above, perhaps for similar reasons. I wasn't assuming that any of the rest of these had anything to do the NPS, other than those labelled specifically as "National Park" something-or-other; I'm not familiar with the relationship between the different bits and pieces, so am just counting based on the permanent categories. I don't propose to do anything about the rest of these for the time being: the parent's back down below the magic size of 800, so I'm at present in no hurry, but if the wikiproject feels any of them might be useful... Alai 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall-related article Stub

{{Cornwall-stub}} We have a {{Scotland-stub}}, {{Ireland-stub}}, {{Wales-stub}}, and a {{France-stub}}, but no Cornwall-related article stub ? see...... List of Celts Pediac 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 things: First of all, all the things you mentioned are countries, and Cornwall is not. Secondly, we do have a {{Cornwall-geo-stub}} for locations within Cornwall. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a requirement ? for example please see {{Atlanta-stub}}, {{Chicago-stub}}, {{California-stub}}

Pediac 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't even know abou the Atlanta and Chicago stubs, but I can see your point by relating it to the California stub. Stub sense lists 384 stubs under Category:Cornwall, but 281 of them are Cornwall-geo-stubs, leaving 103 potential stubs. That normally would be enough, but I'm concerned because StubSense lists 6 articles as having the {{Cornwall-stub}}, which is impossible because it doesn't exist. StubSense query ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here we go: it's recently deleted as seriously undersized, and StubSense is suffering from severe toolserver db duplication lag. So oppose until there's strong evidence of numerical viability. Alai 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It's not a requirement, but while there's something of a presumption that countries ought to have a stub-type, that's not necessarily true of sub-national entities. However, if you have 60-ish articles that are primarily notable in relation to Cornwall (and aren't locations, which as noted there's a more specific type for)... Alai 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sounds like there's enough to warrant, plus, though it might not be a country, it is a distinct cultural region like Wales that had its own distinct Celtish culture and language.plange 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take the 103 number with a pinch of salt: many of those are bios, and will therefore be "highly variable" in their Cornish-relatedness. For example, take Jim Barnes, who seems to be in a Cornish cat due merely to having been born there. In the extreme case, people might be in this hierarchy due only to having been born in say, Devon (part of ancient/cultural Cornwall, but not the modern division), giving significant scoping problems. Alai 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. it might be worth noting that those other subnational regions you mentioned with their own stub types all have their own wikiprojects, which is the only reason they had stub types in the first place. Is there a WikiProject Cornwall? Grutness...wha? 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there isn't currently a Wikiproject Cornwall. I started a Wikiproject Penwith (a district in west Cornwall) a few months back. I have been thinking about starting a Cornwall Wikiproject for some time however I would say that there probably isn't sufficient interest from Cornwall editors. Most contributions tend to be of the "adding increasingly long and off topic links to the external links section" type or the "edit war over the precise terminology used in the first paragraph, or the position of a flag" type. To be honest this puts me off starting one - this is an encyclopedia not a soapbox, and as most of the editors who currently contribute to Cornwall seem happy to play with these minutae rather than tackle jobs like actually improving the content of articles or making maps, I think it would be a waste of time! I would love to be proved wrong on this (apologies to anyone I've wronged in that sweeping generalisation who actually does add significant contributions ! - if you do, and I've missed them, then I'd love to hear from you - maybe we could organise a collaboration?) Take care Mammal4 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further comment - sorry forgot to mention -there is a Cornwall portal that was started recently, however I seem to be the only person who actually edits it, so I base these comments at least in part on this Mammal4 09:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now at least. I don't think that there are sufficient articles to warrant an extra stub type. There easily could be enough articles to populate this stub if editors started adding more content though Mammal4 09:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a lot of Cornish editors are unaware of many of these articles and if they were quickly identifiable and in one place as a Cornwall-related article stub this would help. There are many other articles which could be written about Cornwall and anything which encourages more contribution is a good idea !!! Blaid 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lots of articles could be written but as I said they generally aren't because people would rather squabble over detail. The Cornwall portal was supposed to encourage this sort of thing, but in reality only I edit it and I'm guessing nobody looks at it. Articles first, then a stub category - show me the money! ;) Mammal4 08:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{car-rental-stub}} Category:Car rental stubs

I suggest that there should a stub for car rental. -- Patricknoddy 8:58am July 14, 2006 (EDT)

{{Vermont-artist-stub}} Vermont Artists Stub

At Project Vermont we have a stub category for Vermont politicians, but nothing for other notable residents. I would like to have a broad category for our many musicians, writers, filmmakers etc. and think that this would satisfy the need. H0n0r 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually it wouldn't, for several reasons. First of all, in keeping with the naming guidelines a {{Vermont-artist-stub}} could only be about people in the visual arts. Musicians, writers, filmmakers, etc, would all be excluded form such a stub. Secondly. Category:Vermont stubs with only 11 stubs is hardly overflowing. Once that gets large enough to warrant a separate {{Vermont-bio-stub}}, I'd support that, but I doubtful about any other per state bio-cats other than the generic and the politician. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • sounds good - I guess I'll use the tools available and see how I go - thanks for the suggestion. For future reference, is there an acceptable category of "cultural contributors" or are artists instantly split into specific fields? Thanks againH0n0r 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually, we don't normally split even bio-stubs at a statewide level, since people tend to move around too much (politicians are an exception, since they usually stand for one particualr place). For now, a double-stbbing with Vermont-stub and US-artist-stub (or US-writer-stub, US-musician-stub etc) is the best way to go. Given that we tend to use a threshold of 50-60 stubs for what is a viable category, Cat:Vermont stubs needs a bit of filling anyway! Grutness...wha? 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People should really only be being tagged with a state-specific stub type of any sort if they're notable in connection with that state, or otherwise very strongly associated with it: we don't want to end up with a grab-bag of stub tags associated with people who were born in one place, went to school in another, did something notable in a third, and are now living someplace else, etc. So as Grutness says, use Vermont-stub for the time being -- but sparingly... Alai 04:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do. I was thinking specifically of authors/directors etc. who live in, and focus on, the state in their art, like Howard Mosher. Thanks so much for everyone's input - it has been an education for me. Can I now withdraw the proposal? Thanks again. H0n0r 12:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looks like a completely appropriate tagging, no problem there; 60 of those and a -bio-stub would be no problem. I was just illustrating the potential problems with regional bio-tags. (The proposal will probably languish here for a couple of months until it's actually archived, just in case someone else has a related brainwave, but withdrawal noted.) Alai 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Compilation Stub

There doesn't seem to be a stub category for music video compilations. A "compilation album" one exists, but a released collection of videos wouldn't quite fit in that category. Just64helpin 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{music-video-stub}}, which currently only has 90 stubs. How many music video compilation stubs do you have? --Bruce1ee 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{WWI-battle-stub}} / Category:World War I battle stubs

Lots of battles from Category:World War I stubs could go there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name of the proposed category was not in line with the normal system. I've updated the name and notified the proposer. Valentinian (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way too small. The parent cat. doesn't even have 150 articles and on a first glance I can only see little more than 30 of these. Valentinian (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: My last count was 46 stub articles. Valentinian (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Technology Organizations}} or {{tech-org-stub}}

A category for stubs that deal with technology orientated organizations. This would be a sub-category of the current organization category, which is currently 13 pages long and in need of splitting. It would help with the splitting.--Jaysscholar 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{MLB-stub}}

Used to identify short articles related to Major League Baseball. Mostly Rainy 11:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not wild about the name; a tad cryptic, though admittedly passes the "not a disambig" test. How many of the existing {{baseball-stub}} would this 'take'? Sorting the existing category (I notice numerous misplaced bios, for example) and splitting on a finer criterion might be more useful. Alai 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{industrial-design-stub}} / Category:Industrial design stubs

I think an industrial design stub would be useful. I cant believe there isn't one already, but I have looked around and cant seem to find one. (I am a bit of a wikipedia beginner- so I hope I haven't overlooked some thing) Here are some articles that it would suit: cifra 3, Anglepoise lamp, Juicy Salif, Model 3107 chair --Trounce 11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is {{engineer-stub}} which reads: This article about an engineer, inventor or industrial designer is a stub. But, that's really about a person as opposed to the process. I just checked Category:Industrial design and there's a whopping 25 articles in it (plus a few in the sub-cats), so I can't see how there could be 65 stubs out of all that.
Hmmm.... According to StubSense [9] there are indeed 351 stubs in that cat, but a majority of them already use good stubs:
And it just gets smaller and smaller from there. So, for now, I'm going to oppose because I don't think there are enough stubs to warrant this. Unless someone comes up with a better way to find stubs, then I might rethink my vote. (As a complete side note, I fixed the proposal -added a hyphen- to conform to naming conventions) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by extension, {{engineering-stub}} should cover anything that an {{engineer-stub}} might do, in cases where the above aren't more appropriate, as Amalas mentions. I'd like a clearer idea if there's really a viable pop for which this would be the most applicable stub. Alai 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia, so bear with me! My understanding of stubs is they are to ctagorize unfinished articles so that, say an engineer could browse engineering based stubs and see if he could add to any articles. I just thought with certain products such as cifra 3, Anglepoise lamp, Juicy Salif and Model 3107 chair, although they are basic things, like a clock or a chair, their quality of design has set them above and apart from other similar products. Take Juicy Salif for example, it's a simple fruit juicer that really wouldn't merrit a wikipedia article by itsef but for its design. There are people (strange, obsessive people!!) who would have an understanding of those products from a design perspective, and if they are filed under furniture or kitchen utensil or whatever I think we would be making it harder for those people to contribute to those articles.--Trounce 12:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that there certainly are articles for which this would be the most appropriate stub types (and your examples look plausible), it's just not 100% clear to me that there's 60 such. Could you compile a longer list of candidate articles, perhaps? Alai 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{diplomacy-stub}} / Category:Diplomacy stubs and {{diplomat-stub}} / Category:Diplomat stubs

Despite the Category:Diplomacy, articles on diplomacy are spread out across Wikipedia. The stubs are accordingly disparate, falling into Category:Government stubs, Category:Politics stubs, Category:Military stubs, Category:International organization stubs, etc. In addition, there are dozens of stubs that aren't listed as such, since there isn't an appropriate category.

Into the new Category:Diplomacy stubs would go (amongst others) dozens of pieces of terminology (from eDiplomat); 43 articles on New Zealand's missions abroad; and a great many on embassies, 'Foreign relations of Foo', etc.
Into the new Category:Diplomat stubs (which would be a subcategory of the above), would fall most of the 508 stubs identified by StubSense.

Further sub-categories could easily be justified in due course, but these are the two most pressing. Bastin 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be a tricky one, as it's the sort of category that may be applied correctly to someone, without it necessarily being their primary area of notability, if they're also, as you note, a politico, military person, or whatnot. But 508 is a goodly safety margin, so that seems likely enough, so long as people don't go mad with unnecessary double-stubbing or inappropriate restubbing, sounds good. Alai 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These already got proposed back in June. There's not any problem with {{diplomat-stub}}, which had as of then had only about 300 potential stubs idetified by StubSense, and could certainly be created now based on that previous proposal. There was a mild disagreemeent over whether to have a diplomacy stub type or a broader international relations stub type, and I've been trying through CFD to get the perma-cats better organized first before resolving that. Phase 1 awaits merely an admin to close out two uncontentious CFD upmerges. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutra Pharma stub

The proposed stub will have information about their research and pipeline and will include links to organizations that focus on the particular diseases. This will fit within the category List of Biotechnology Companies and Medical Company Stubs. There is currently a large list of stubs for biotechnology companies medical companies and I see this fitting well within those categories. -- Isserdude07 08:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite sure what you mean by all of that. This page deals with stub templates and categories - neither of which have "information about their research and pipeline" or links. In any case "nutra-pharma-stub" is far too obscure and ambiguous a name. If I understand you correectly you're asking for a stub for biotechnology companies, in which case biotech-company-stub would be a more logical name. How many stubs are there that could take this? If there are over 60, it seems reasonable, but I'd like to know whether I've interpreted your request correctly first! Grutness...wha? 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy

I am currently working on a Family Guy WikiProject and I would like to create stubs relating to the show.

  1. {{FamilyGuy-char-stub}}/Category:Family Guy character stubs-6 so far, but the project will be expanding the number of character pages, so the number will go up exponentially
  2. {{FamilyGuy-episode-stub}}/Category:Family Guy episode stubs-0 so far, but as new episodes are added to Wikipedia, we will need this tag
  3. {{FamilyGuy-stub}}/Category:Family Guy stubs-1 so far--these will relate to miscellaneous FG things, so it as well will be more often used

-PhattyFatt 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose There doesn't need to be 3 categories based on a cult tv show. Maybe one, but I personally think that the fictional character stubs and categories work just fine for this purpose. --Burgwerworldz 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong OpposeAbsolutely no way. You don't even have enough existing stubs to justify one stub, let alone three. 30 stubs is the minimum for a Wikiproject's first stub and after that the number needed to justify goes up to the same 60 per stub type as for any other stub type. Get it up to 30 stubs, and I could marginally support a single stub type. In any case, there are better ways than stub types to identify articles of interest to a television series Wikiproject. The main one would be a template to place on each article's talk page. I did take the liberty of renaming your proposed stub templates to conform to the naiming guidelines, but frankly, except for {{FamilyGuy-stub}}, I can't see any of these being created.Caerwine Caerwhine 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The SG templates are probably a good idea (the episode stub is definitely big enough and the other is 50+) but the category pages are more than a bit hideous. There's no stub category for either of them, just a list of templates. Valentinian (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Stargate people had split out a child category but done so incorrectly. I've updated the code on both templates and cat.s, so it should be better now. Valentinian (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{UK-noble-stub}}

This is just under 1300 right now, and will probably exceed it soon as I continue to sort UK-bio-stub. We already have a Scotland noble-stub, but that is proving insufficient. Based on counts provided by StubSense I recommend the following rank based stubs.

Baronet is a UK only noble rank, which is why the categories for the baronets don't include British. We may also wish to consider

as a sub type of Category:British baron stubs since that proposed stub type isn't all that far from beoming overlarge themselves. The few pre-1876 life peers with ranks higher than baron either have no articles or better than stub articles, and we can include some boilerplate to make it clear that it applies only to the post-1875 life peers. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that split's necessary yet, though the main one clearly is. And please... Alai, I know you're annoyed at Caerwine's suggested namings, but can we keep that debate from spilling over into the proposals? Grutness...wha? 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As said actions (and said annoyance) started here, not really, no. And as it happens, this case is as good an instance as I could have made up from whole cloth as to why "UK" = "British" is problematic, and "follow the permanents", regardless of any inconsistency therein, or naming issues induced thereby, should not be an iron-shod rule, so short of a meatball:GoodBye or a wikibreak under heavy sedation, refraining from comment on this was never really an option. Alai 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't think there'd be anyone here who'd see that as a good solution... we may not agree on all things, but you're very useful to this project and have done a ton of work for it. As to naming, UK vs GB vs British is always going to be a problem, especially sinvce you've also got pre-UK history and current nationalist/devolutionist sentiment to cope with, and any "solution" we come up with for the stub and main category names is bound to be a compromise. Hell, with even things like Cornwall and the Orkneys getting in on the act (as recently happened at SFD) it's a logistical nightmare. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • United Kingdom vs. Britain is one issue, and yes, on occasion a thorny one, if not to say a historically confusing given the two (or so) states with variations on the former title. Having variant templates for each incarnation of said country is going to be worse though, especially if it's applied inconsistently across different categories. But above and beyond that, what we can absolutely do without is the explicit equation made by templates called "UK-something" feeding into "British some-related-category", which is just to add cognitive dissonance, occasional controversy, possible scope confusion and double-takes, for no material benefit that's discernable to me. Especially if this just acts to further encourage "let's dump NI-related articles into "Irish"/"Ireland" categories of not-explicitly-specified scope. Alai 07:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there never was a United Kingdom of Great Britain tho a redirect exists for those who think there was. The style of that state that existed from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800 was simply the Kingdom of Great Britain, however, as long as we're discussing United Kingdoms, let's not forget the The United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarve or the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. As an additional asides, under the law of the United Kingdom the people of Northern Ireland are officially British citizens, so at least as far as people are concerned using British is certainly not a problem. Now to get back to the point at hand I believe that the terms Peerage of Great Britain and Peerage of the United Kingdom are the standard terms used here, and not arbitrary Wiki-ventions, tho I do hope the good folks at WP:PEER will respond to Alai's invitation. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I included the link partly as the article discusses that term; I'll not repeat that here, other than to note my disagreement with your assessment. I'm not clear what your other examples might be intended to illustrate. It beats me how anyone can use the example of the citizenship question and terminology of Northern Irish people in the same sentence as "certainly not a problem", much less blithely assert it; UK official government POV is not neutral (nor terminology, consistent, come to that). At no point did I suggest the distinction was an "arbitrary Wiki-ventions", but rather that it's needlessly obscure, and apt to cause confusion. Splitting oversized stub categories by century and/or decade is, on the other hand, extremely clear, and has significant precedent in other such. Alai 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, baronets aren't really nobles and shouldn't be in this category in the first place, unless they hold a higher title. This would be a good opportunity to filter them into their own stub cat. Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Caerwine's point above, I think that "United Kingdom" is fairly universally understood to mee the UK of GB & NI, despite other "claimants to the throne", as it were, in much the same way that you can say "United States" without many people thinking initially of Los Estados Unidos do Mexico (ISTR that Brazil is also now a "United States"). "British" does have one extra problem, though - those British citizens who reside in Bermuda, the Falklands, Gibraltar, etc. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criminologist Stubs

I am proposing criminology and criminologist stubs. "criminology-stub and "criminologist-stub" is essential, especially many of it are marked in the sociology or psychology stubs or catagories. --Cyril Thomas 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. nationality/occupation splits

Based on counts from the country-bio-stub parent, only. Alert viewers will notice the biography/-al flip-flopping; these are following the existing occu-stub parent. If we want a systematic scheme, we'd better decide which. Alai 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't that be Category:British music biography stubs? Caerwine Caerwhine 04:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? There's no corresponding permanent category, even to apply your own proposed scheme. Alai 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the naming conventions call for categories of people to use adjectives to indicate nationality (where available), so if there was a corresponsing non-stub category it would use British and not United Kingdom. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you be referring to WP:NCCAT, which explicitly says: "In situations where multiple adjectives are possible, please note that no official policy exists as to which one is favoured."? And links to a list of same which gives "American, U.S." for Those United States? Obviously I have some edit-warring to do to get "U.K." on there too... Alai 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • support - preferably with "United Kingdom". How is the word "jurist" used in Canada, BTW - the US sense (attorneys and judges) or the British sense (legal academics and writers)? Grutness...wha? 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was a little queasy about that too. Probably we should rename the existing cats to, and create this at, "... law biography stubs", just to keep things nice and simple, and include a scoping statement to rule out some of the woolier interpretations. Alai 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The perm-cats use jurist primarily, but they also have some legal professionals because of the lack of usage of the perfectly good word jurist as word for legalists in Commonwealth English. There is even a duplication with both a British jurists and a British legal professionals category. Once again I find myself wishing we had a en-US and a en-UK wiki. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, we have the word all right. We just use it to refer to something completely different. A jurist is someone who writes, researches and/or lectures in the law and its history. Why use it elsewhere when there are perfectly good words like "judge" and "barrister"? Grutness...wha? 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Pity we poor residents of Ireland, Australia, etc. Looking at the history, the "British jurists" one seems to be a recreation of an earlier CFD, and the other a result of that same discussion. (Perhaps there was later discussion about recreating this, perhaps it was a "solo run", I'd have to poke around more to tell.) There are guidelines that supposedly affirm the use of generally understood language rather than either Commonwealth- or US-specific terms, so by any reasonable criteria the whole hierarchy ought really to be at Category:Legal professionals etc. The Canadians, however, are singularly at "Category:Canadian legal professionals". Alai 06:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just another example of why it might be better of there were separate Wikis for American and British English like there are for Norsk bokmål and Norsk nynorsk. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's rather more difference between those than just bickering about the meaning and appropriate use of "alternate", "alternative" and what-not, but it is somewhat ironic that the two largest wiki-communities (or two out of the top three, at any rate) have to cohabit in often sulky fashion on a single wiki, while numerically very much smaller dialects split out ad infinitum. (How many Former Yugoslav Wikis of Serbo-Croatian are there these days?) I've certainly pondered more than once whether preference-based #ifexprs or similar might not be the ultimate solution to -our/-or, -ise/-ize, petrol/gasoline [optional "," here] and logical/aethetic quotes (or is that esthetic?). At any rate, a little above the proverbial pay grade of WSS/P. Alai 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainers by country

Once again, based on counts from (oversized) country-bio-stubs, that are in or under Category:Entertainers:

In the case of the larger ones, there might be narrower types that can be split out first, and/or some undersorting to existing types. Alai 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio people by country

On the basis of country-bio-stubs that are also under the category of Category:Radio people, the following look plausible:

For the UK case, in fact there's already a double-catted template {{UK-radio-bio-stub}} with more than 60 usages, so it's certainly viable. The others might be overcounts, if the perm-cat doesn't relate to their primary notability (or undercounts, if there are numerous such stubs lacking occupational categories). Alai 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more mil bios

Similarly. Alai 04:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biographical or biography? Grutness...wha? 05:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal is following the existing parent. If you'd prefer the other, I'm game, but please SFR said parent first. I take your point though, there does seem to be a fair bit of inconsistency about between the two. Alai 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we went by the parent cats we would end up with a hodge podge of either X military people stubs or X military personnel stubs. I'm going to head over to the Military history project and try to get them to decide whether they want the main cats to use X military people or X military personnel with an eye to organizing an umbrella renaming over at CFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film bio split

Based on counts only from the film-bios... Alai 04:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

again, biographical or biography? Grutness...wha? 05:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Antarctica-stub}} / Category:Antarctica stubs

Let me state off the bat that I expect this stub to have only about 30-40 stubs at first, populated from {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} and {{explorer-stub}}. However, there is no appropriate parent stub, and in its lack we have the anamolous situation of non-geo-stubs being tagged with {{Antarctica-geo-stub}} (which has slightly over 400 stubs). Caerwine Caerwhine 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeees... there won't be that many - although you could probably find a few marked explorer-stub that could do with double stubbing. And there is a child category which is getting fairly near needing some form of split (RossDependency-geo-stub, perhaps?). Tentative support if we can scrape together a few more stubs - it would be hypocritical to support this one while objecting to the ones above unless it's considerably coser to threshold. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fict-org-stub}} / Category:Fictional organizations stubs

There are plenty of fictional organizations out there, from super-hero teams to groups on television shows. Jfingers88 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But are there plenty of stub articles about fictional organizations? Caerwine Caerwhine 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. But I would assume they're merely listed in a broader category, such as {{Tv-stub}} or {{comics-stub}}. Jfingers88 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please find them first. Because of the nature of fictional organization articles, I'm not certain there will be many stubs. An organization found in only a single work of fiction shouldn't be broken out of the article on that work unless there is more than a stub's worth of article. Only in the case of organizations found in multiple works should there even be stub articles. I realize that this ideal of what should happen with subtopics is not always followed, but I'd like something firmer than "there ought to be enough stubs" in this case. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 111 articles under Category:Fictional organizations which qualify as stub size (less than 512k, fewer than 7 wikilinks). Of course, I don't know if they merit anything larger than stub size, but there it is. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Equivocal. There seems to be the population, as Peg notes, but I fear that this won't do much to reduce the size of existing large types, and will probably just increasing double-stubbing, as few topics are primarily notable for being "fictional organizations", and most are probably quite correctly sorted as tv-stubs, comics-stubs, etc. Alai
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2006/July&oldid=72256055"