Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals

[edit]

Scope of {{fest-stub}} and {{music-stub}}

[edit]

There is a relatively old and established {{fest-stub}} (This festival-related article...). Unsurprisingly, there are also a fair number of music festival articles in {{music-stub}} (e.g. Aerodrome Festival), and a small number of music festival articles in fest-stub. So, where should they go? A subcategory of both would be the most consistent way, but the number seems to be too low (wild guess: 30-50). Another thing to ponder is if fest-stub is useful in its current wording anyway, since it clearly cuts across multiple stub categories (music-stub, reli-stub, film-stub...) which have little to do with each other besides of having festivals, and well, who's a specialist on festivals? Your opinions would be greatly appreciated. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that no-one's commented on this yet. Fest-stub has always been a bit of a problem. If there were more stubs in it it would help. One possibility would be to scrap it, put the music festivals in music-stub, film-festivals in film-stub, and create something like day-stub to cover any religious festivals, annual holidays and other calendar-related things. Either that or put religious festivals in reli-stub or one of its subcategories and hope that very little remains! Grutness...wha? 07:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that one has grown mightily since I last looked at it - nearly 250 stubs now. When I find the time, I'll take out all music- and film-stubs, and maybe the reli-stubs too. But maybe some renaming would be good, as to keep people from adding such stubs to it again? -- grm_wnr Esc 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of proposing a {{music-venue-stub}} to include not only the festivals but the various bars, concert halls, tours, and other places where music is performed. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd support that strongly (actually been thinking about that myself but got hung up on the question above), but there's still the problem that fest-stub has a very ambiguous name and many music festivals will still be sorted to it. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just created Template:Music-venue-stub and the associated Category:Music venue stubs, but I won't put anything in it until I get the okay from here. I'd say the fest-stub category is pretty useless, since someone knowledgable about music festivals won't know anything about dance festivals, art festivals, etc. Most festivals probably should go in the subject matter category OR in the local geo category if they're mainly of local interest. Regardless of how that plays out, however, it won't hurt in the short run to move them from music-stub to music-venue-stub.—Wahoofive (talk) 21:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{US-insular-geo-stub}}

[edit]

I have noticed that the 70+ Puerto Rico city stubs have been split between {{US-geo-stub}} and {{Caribbean-geo-stub}}. This proposed stub would be able to handle all of these plus existing stubs for Guam and the minor islands in the Hawaiian chain. Name is based off of the current Insular area term to reduce confusion with historical US territories. --Allen3 talk 15:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Puerto Rico stubs should all be in Caribbean-geo-stub, since technically Puerto Rico is not part of the United States (and many Puerto Ricans would object if you said it was!), although it is an American territory. Note also that USVI stubs also go in Caribbean-geo-stub, and stubs for places like Guam go in Oceania-geo-stub. As for Hawaii, I suspect the time is coming when individual US states are going to have to get geo-stubs. Isn't there a Hawaii WikiProject? If there is it would make sense to have a Hawaii-geo-stub. Certainly grouping Hawaii and Puerto Rico together strikes me as a bit odd, since I doubt editors who are experts at one would necessarily be exterts at the other. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if there are 70+ of them (the Puerto Rican ones) it might well be worth having a separate category for them anyway, {{PuertoRico-geo-stub}}. If there are more than 100 of them, then it would definitely be a good idea. It could feed into both Caribbean-geo and US-geo as parents. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find about 15 Puerto Rican cities in US-geo-stub, all of which I have now moved into caribbean-geo-stub. And that only makes 48 Puerto Rican geo-stubs in all, since about half of the cities have articles that are beyond stub level. Looks like no {{PuertoRico-geo-stub}} for now... Grutness...wha? 07:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii isn't part of the insular area. :-) — Instantnood 08:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps anything more on this one should be brought up down at the proposed US-geo-stub split, below? I'm busy counting stubs on a state-by-state basis for that, and there are very few Hawaiian ones so far, BTW (only 4 of the first 460). Grutness...wha? 10:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Fruit-stub}} *created

[edit]

I think the need has come for fruit stubs. for eg. Indian Berry is not a plant instead a fruit of which i have little information. but there is no fruit stub. i came across another one which was listed as a plant stub until i improved and it was no longer a stub. there would be many such articles and fruits yet to be listed. I find that many asian fruits r still missing in the wikipedia so they would all fit niceley under the {{fruit stub}} if it is created. the icon picture could include a banana since it is universally recognized. --Idleguy 11:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Either this is a wind-up or serious... I don't know which. If it's serious, then given that there are less than 800 plant stubs in total I doubt there would be 100 fruit stubs, but if there are, then it would be worthwhile. For now, though, since fruit are plants - or at least parts of plants - use plant-stub, and if you add food-stub as a second stub (and if this is a wind-up, add your vote to the tfd draft page under {{banana-stub}}!). Grutness...wha? 12:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a windup. it's a serious request. For example i have nearly a dozen rare and wild fruits from the Indian subcontinent that i myself have only a line or two to comment on. creating a fruit stub would encourage focussed improvement since fruit comes from a plant and it's too general to be classified as food. I suggested banana just as an icon, a mango or even an apple would do the job just fine. Idleguy 05:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
In that case I owe you an apology. To explain why I wasn't sure, a draft page for "Stubs for deletion" is currently being drawn up, and a long-deleted joke template called {{banana-stub}} is being used as the demonstration case for it. Grutness...<small>wha? 09:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Since i'm unsure how this works, how long does it take before we get a fruit stub created? Since I found that another 2 dozen fruit related articles are just stubs. so if we can get the stub up and running then i'd be able to use it. --Idleguy 17:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
It only takes a few minutes to create but days and days to destroy (through "regular channels"). The wait here is only to get feed-forward to increase the chances of getting it "right" (as if there is such a thing) so that back steps or side steps aren't needed and the sort, once done, doesn't need to be re-done later owing to a change in template/category. There's no formal time period to wait; it's been about a week now. Despite my comment below supporting the creation, I've been thinking more on what Grutness said about the relatively low number of articles ... how about making this {{FNV-stub}} with another, {{Fruit-and-Vegetable-stub}} as a permanent redirect, the FNV for typing convenience, the longer term for clarity, with either suitable for use, but default flow from longer to FNV type? Courtland 18:45, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  • I support creation of {{fruit-stub}} and Category:Fruit stubs, the latter as a child of Category:Food and drink stubs. There is a significant category Category:Fruit that has >100 articles in it and several subcategories, and I think that Category:Fruit stubs would go as a child of this category. Further, in looking at Category:Apples about half of the 18 articles are stubs, several of which were not labeled as such, with some labels being {{plant-stub}} and more being {{food-stub}}. Therefore, I think the representation of the number of potential stubs is underestimated by looking at Category:Plants. Courtland 05:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable - see also the discussion relating to a split of food-stub below. I think {{fruit-stub}} is a pretty reasonable idea, and {{vegetable-stub}} might also be useful. Since no-one's objected in the last week or more, I'm going ahead with making fruit-stub. Grutness...wha? 11:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Spain-bio-stub}}, {{China-bio-stub}}, {{Italy-bio-stub}}, {{NZ-bio-stub}} *All 4 created

[edit]

Continuing the break up of bio-stubs by nationality... These four seem very likely candidates. And before anyone asks, all Chinese - PRC and RoC! Grutness...wha? 12:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like blanket solutions, but this might be a place to put one forth. So far for nationality there are two major axes: General and Geography. If we accept People as a third axis, then I'd suggest either a "make it if you need it" policy for the axis or some guideline such as if the tally for the General category is in the <200 bin then make a template now. Applying this guideline would mean that only {{Spain-geo-stub}} would not be made.

Courtland 05:38, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

  • The other way is far more daunting - run a tally of how many bio-stubs there are of each, much like you're doing with station stubs and I did a few months back with geo-stubs. And with this many bio-stubs, that would be a stiff task. Ideally, I'd like to see bio-stubs double stubbed by location and profession, with hybrid categories where needed, but I realise that would be an impossibly big task. Any reduction of the main bio-stub category would be worthwhile, though. And I think that these forur (or three if Spain is left for noww) would reduce the category a lot. The one problem I forsee is with people from several centuries ago, at which times national boundaries were considerably different, and some modern nations did not exist. Technically people like Leonardo da Vinci were not Italian, since Italy did not exist - although I don't think anyone would object if he were listed as Italian. But what, for example, of people born in what is now Albania some 200 years ago - do you count them as Albanian or Turkish? Grutness...wha? 09:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, ancesters are a toughy. This isn't just a stub-category problem, though, but hits all the standard country-oriented categories; i.e. it's a universal problem. I'm wondering if this has been discussed at the Wikipedia:Village pump or at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography or one of its child WikiProjects. (I've not taken the time to look yet) Courtland 17:43, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I've created all four. I'm expecting some kind of problems over the definition of "China" (those of you who've been around WP:WSS for a while will know what I mean!), but hopefully it can be averted to some extent. I'll try to head one of those most likely off at the pass... :) Grutness...wha? 12:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've spoken to Instantnood, whom many of you will remember was a chief protagonist in the long-running China-geo-stub debate, and I've also left a note on the talk page of Mababa, the other main protagonist. Instantnood seems to think that just one category should be more-or-less acceptable, as many of the biographies will be of people living before 1948. He does suggest, though, that HK-bio-stub should not be made a subcategory of it. Whether others will agree, I don't know, but I think it's an opinion worth reporting here. I've also left a note (in as diplomatic terms as I could!) on Wikipedia_talk:Taiwan-related_topics_notice_board Grutness...wha? 13:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suggested, in the conversation with Grutness, not to subcategorised category:Hong Kong people stubs as there are some non-ethnic Chinese people in the Hong Kong category (for instance, cricketers and former colonial officials). They, although usually are permanent residents of Hong Kong, have no or little Chinese ancestry, and they're not PRC citizens. Making it a subcategory would therefore generate some problem. As an alternative I suggested to add a hyperlink at category:Chinese people stubs to the Hong Kong category.
The main problem that can likely be expected to arise would be with Taiwanese people, be they people in the Japanese Formosa era, or pro-independence people in the present day. — Instantnood 15:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
For the conversation between Grutness and I, see user talk:Grutness#China-bio-stub and user talk:Instantnood#Stub category. — Instantnood 15:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Most of these problems, as I see it, stem from the confounding of the term "Chinese" meaning "from China" and the traditional racial grouping. Some careful wording of the template or category may well make it clear that bio-stubs are divided by location rather than race (for example, the mayor of the city I live in, Peter Chin, has been given a NZ-bio-stub template rather than a China-bio-stub, despite his ancestry). Grutness...wha? 08:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree. This is partly because of the fact that there are relatively few non-Chinese ethnic people in China, as China is not an immigrant country like Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States. When we talk about Korean or Japanese people we would not normally think of Korean or Japanese citizen with European ancestry. Citizenship is largely, with some exceptions, a subset of ethnicity in these cases. — Instantnood 20:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Split/redirection of Caucasus-geo-stub

[edit]

{{Caucasus-geo-stub}} has always been a bit of a problem - everyone knows were the caucasus is, but not many people can remember what countries are there. This stub actually covers just three countries, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Azerbaijan now has about 80 stubs, and Armenia has over 60, with only Georgia well below any kind of threshold for a separate category. I would like to propose creating {{Armenia-geo-stub}} and {{Azerbaijan-geo-stub}}, and redirecting {{Caucasus-geo-stub}} (with all its remaining Georgian stubs) to the holding pen of {{Euro-geo-stub}}.

By the way, I've just finished a re-count of the geo-stubs of all un-split countries - there are now nine with over 50 stubs each, though only five of them have 60 or more (none are that close to 100). The full list is at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying if anyone's interested. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: {{Armenia-geo-stub}} and {{Azerbaijan-geo-stub}} have been created. {{Caucasus-geo-stub}} still exists, but feeds into Category:Europe geography stubs. For the reasons for this, see below under Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#More geography. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Split of US-geo-stub

[edit]

I see there's a California stub already ({{Calif-geo-stub}}). Are there any criteria for creating other state-based stubs? What about naming conventions, if any? Would it make sense to use the two-letter USPS abbreviation as in {{US-AL-geo-stub}} to {{US-WY-geo-stub}}? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:35, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

The criterion used here in the past is that there needed to be a specific wikiproject about the state. Unfortunately someone unconnected with the project went ahead and created the misnamed Calif-geo-stub anyway. I think the time is probably coming to have a look at breaking all 50 (or at least some of them) out. It would be worth running a survey to see which states have over 100 potential geo-stubs though, rather than creating one for Nebraska and then discovering that it only has three stubs! I suppose the two letter codes make sense, although they'd be a problem for those of us outside the US who haven't a clue whether MI is Michigan, Mississippi, Minnesota, or Missouri. The other option would be to go with them and have the full names as redirects (like this - USMontana-geo-stub, otherwise there'll be trouble with Georgia!) Grutness...wha? 03:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just want to explicitly concur with Grutness with regard to the issue of the two-letter state codes - this requires stub sorters to know an additional set of fifty two-letter codes and that's more annoying than having to type the whole state name (even in the case of Mississippi :). If anything, each should have a redirect so that it works either way. --Joy [shallot] 09:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of them should be pretty obvious - especially those with unique first two letters. Clearly CA would be California, FL Florida, HA Hawaii, MO Montana, and WY Wyoming. As to the less clear ones, it would make sense if Arkansas is AK and Arizona is AR, AS for Alaska and AB for Alabama. MC would make sense for Michigan, but is MI Mississippi or Missouri? Grutness...wha? 13:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see {{UT-geo-stub}} has already been created, too. There are around 2600 US-geo-stubs, which roughly translates to 50 per state. (I'm sure some have more than others.) For the sake of consistency, should geo stubs for all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) be created at the same time? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:13, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
UT-geo-stub was created because of a wikiproject on Utah. And yes, 2600 works out roughly at 50 per state... and the threshopld we use is 60-100... and no doubt those stubs will not be evenly distributed (will there be as many geo-stubs on Rhode Island as there are on Texas? Are you seriously expecting 50 stubs on DC?). So the answer, as far as I'm concerned, is a most definite NO. To quote what I wrote before - It would be worth running a survey to see which states have over 100 potential geo-stubs though, rather than creating one for Nebraska and then discovering that it only has three stubs! Hold off on this until I run that survey. Then we might at least have some kind of idea of which states need stub categories and which ones don't. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have just been bold. {{Calif-geo-stub}} now redirects to {{California-geo-stub}}. And, after counting through the first page of US geo-stubs (while doing so removing the odd school-stub, struct-stub, and geol-stub), one state stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of numbers... California. Seems whoever created that category didn't think to look for too many stubs... I shall post the names of any states that pass the 100 stub threshold here as they pass that mark. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count update: 463 articles gone (A-mid Ca), and I'm calling it quits for the night - the cold weather's getting at my arthritic-y thumb - and sleet is forecast :( Of those 463, every state except Delaware has at least one US-geo-stub (so had Alberta, Ontario, New South Wales, and Portugal, but I fixed them!). California has 60 stubs of those 462, no other state has over 25 (although both Washington state and New York have over 20). Given that there are 2600 current US-geo-stubs, if these ratios stay constant (unlikely) these will be the only three states with over 100 stubs, and 10 others will have over 60. Some will struggle to get to 10 stubs. I think moving all the California stubs out will greatly reduce the size of the category. It's also worth noting that I checked 500 stubs - the other 37 shouldn't have been in the category to start with! Grutness...wha? 10:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image showing only regions removed, see better one below. grm_wnr

Yes, that might just work. And those few states that do reach 100 stubs could be spun off (which would proably include Alaska, by the look of it). The only problem would be the very small handful of stubs from Hawaii (looks likely to be about 20). If so, it will need to be treated like the African geography categories, with this map in all the categories and probably small map icons on the templates so that editors can notice mistakes quickly. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since we already have {{hawaii-stub}} (even though it's broken right now, but that's easily fixed) I say we make an exception for Hawaii and just keep that. BTW, for those who haven't noticed, the regions above have the distinction of being official - they're used by the United States Census Bureau. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Officially, it seems Hawaii is counted among the West (as is Alaska). -- grm_wnr Esc 13:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A thought: If the US is being broken up into either regions or states, is it about time the annoying (and badly-named) {{state park-stub}} was deprecated? or is there a wikiproject using it? Grutness...wha? 10:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count update: After 1448 stubs counted (A-M), California has reached 133 stubs. Alaska has over 90, and Washington state has reached 80, and Colorado, Illinois, NY, and Ohio all have about 60. Nebraska has one. If divided into the four regions, all four would have over 225 already (the west would have nearly 450), and I've still got 900 stubs to tally. I'm also removing a huge number of US-struct-stubs and metro station stubs as I go... Grutness...wha? 12:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The USCB further subdivides into nine divisions. But they're probably too non-intuitive for stub categorisation. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well the four aren't totally intuitive - I have to keep reminding myself "Oklahoma is south not midwest; Ohio is midwest, not northeast." The original four are fairly good divisions, I think - especially if we explicitly make Hawaii part of the "West" region and pare off the really big ones. We can always look at further splits later. Hopefully I should have a completed count in the next 24 hours. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finish of count - proposed split

[edit]

Well, I've now gone through all the US-geo-stubs. This is my suggestion for a split - the numbers are the approximate number that are in each category

No other states reach 100 stubs, although several are close (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio each have 75 or more). Grutness...wha? 09:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could we go with a {{NewYork-geo-stub}} and {{Washington-geo-stub}} out of simplicity? That way all the states have a parallel format. If someone wants to make a New York City stub, they can make {{NewYorkCity-geo-stub}}, and likewise, a {{WashingtonDC-geo-stub}} for DC. Incidentally, New York and Washington both link to the states, not the cities. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you prefer. The reason I used those names is that overseas (i.e., outside the US) if you hear "New York" and "Washington", you instantly think of the cities. The states are usually named with the word "state" after their names - I don't know how they're called in the US, though so if "New York" and "Washington" are usually taken to mean the states, that's fine. There is, BTW, already a NYC-stub (but not a geo-stub). By the way - as with the uncategorised countries, I'm adding the full list as it currently stands to my geo-stub tallying page Grutness...wha? 12:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blissfully ignorant of this page and procedure of stub creation proposal, I boldy created {{Colorado-stub}} a couple days ago to hold the many Colorado-related stubs I have been generating lately (I figured if {{Texas-stub}} and {{UT-stub}}/{{UT-geo-stub}} existed, then it was OK.). I had already wanted to create {{Colorado-geo-stub}} as a sub cat when I stumbled on this page. I can virtually guarantee that at the rate I'm going, Colorado will soon have as many or more geo stubs than any state of the Union. Also I plan on turning my attention to Oregon stubs pretty soon as well. -- Decumanus 00:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
With 94 stubs, Colorado is immediately next after the ones with over 100, so I've added it to the list above. Oregon isn't close yet, though. The main problem is the south, if we split by regions - there are several in the "close, but not quite" category (Florida 75, NC 73...), but nothing really quite big enough. By the way, if anyone wants to help with this task, I can post then a list of all the stubs I've found for each individual state! Grutness...wha? 01:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can do the Northeast and New York. And yes, I would like to see that list :). --Spangineer (háblame) 11:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully I'm not moving too fast, but I just categorized 100+ of the easy NE stubs (mostly ones with state names in them), and I also just created {{NewYork-geo-stub}}. I realize that "New York" commonly refers to the city overseas, but in the name of consistency with the article title, I went with that. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Completed nearly all the categorization for {{Oregon-geo-stub}}. There may be some stragglers in the original {{US-geo-stub}} I didn't see, so I'd like to see your list, Grutness, when you have time. -- Decumanus 06:23, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

(for some reason this bit got shifted, or I didn't edit it in right the first time...) I've started putting the list in here. I'll add the south and west when I get time (probably after the down-time's over). Grutness...wha? 00:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

since I'm home a little sooner than I thought (after 250 km driving through sleet :( I'll try to get a little more available before the down-time. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would have happened then, too, if someone hadn't decided that 6:56 was close enough to the advertised time, and shut Wikipedia down then! GRRR! Grutness...wha? 23:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops - mea culpa. I forgot to allow for daylight saving. It actually went down at 7:56. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Implementation of split

[edit]

I have created {{US-south-geo-stub}} and Category:Southern US geography stubs. Can y'all check to ensure I did it right? Thanks. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:04, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I just changed the category of Category:Southern US geography stubs; instead of being under U.S. related stubs, I put it under U.S. geography stubs. I also used your template as a base for the northeast stubs. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
And I've just used the northeast template as a basis for {{US-midwest-geo-stub}} and {{US-west-geo-stub}}. I'll start filling {{US-south-geo-stub}} this week. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:24, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make a start on {{Alaska-geo-stub}}. Note the link to the big list of where everything is listed at User:Grutness/US_geo-stub_list. Cooperation in action - pity that stub sorting can't be up for Collaboration of the week! :) Grutness...wha? 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... seems someone beat me to it - Alaska-geo-stub already exists... Grutness...wha? 00:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about {{UT-geo-stub}}? Should it be renamed to Utah-geo-stub? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
It should. I created Utah-geo-stub as a redirect to it, since I didn't want to tread on the toes of the Utah wikiproject, but on second thoughts it would be far better the other way round (so I'll change it). BTW, I've just reworded all four of the US region categories, to make them like the other "regional-split" geography stub categories. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Double stubbing structures
[edit]

Are we double stubbing structures according to region/state or not? --Spangineer (háblame) 16:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to. Structures shouldn't have geo-stub of any kind - they should have US-struct-stub - but some stub sorters seem to forget that and put geo-stub templates on struct-stub articles anyway. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Amusement parks
[edit]

What about amusement park stubs? Do they belong in xx-geo-stub as some of them are now (Hamel's Amusement Park, for example)? At least one is in {{US-stub}}: Oaks Amusement Park. For what it's worth, there is a lightly populated {{Ride-stub}} for amusement park rides, but not for the parks themselves. Would it be good to create a amusement park stub category and put parks and rides in it? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:26, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Well, since ride-stub is there, we might as well use it. There are quite a few amusement park rides in struct-stub (the parks themselves are in geo-stub, though). Grutness...wha? 07:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zoos
[edit]

What about zoos? Are they geo stubs, struct stubs ({{US-struct-stub}}), or regional stubs ({{US-stub}})? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:08, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Sigh. I've never really known what to do with these. My usual rule of thumb is to use geo-stub, since zoos are a specialist type of park and parks get geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Double stubbing regions
[edit]

I should have asked this before now. What about for areas that span more than one region (for example, Great Allegheny Passage and The Wedge (border))? There are other examples, such as mountain ranges, that are double stubbed as {{Colorado-geo-stub}} and {{US-west-geo-stub}} when the feature extends outside of Colorado. Should these be double stubbed with both relevant regions, or should areas such as this stay in {{US-geo-stub}}? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:33, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I've been double-stubbing them. But avoid using more than two if possible. Here are the rules of thumb I've been using:
  • two states with their own stubs, use both (e.g., California and Oregon get both california-geo-stub and oregon-geo-stub
  • two states, one with a category, the other in the same region, use both state and region, but make a note next to the region stub with <!--xxx--> to say why both stubs are there (e.g., California and Nevada, use California-geo-stub and US-west-geo-stub, and put <!--for Nevada--> next to the west stub.
  • two states, different regions, neither with a state template, use both region stubs (e.g., Pennsylvania and Ohio, use US-northeast-geo-stub and US-midwest-geo-stub)
  • more than two states in one region, use the region (e.g., Rocky Mountains, use US-west-stub)
  • more than two states, split between two regions, use two region stubs (e.g., US East Coast, use US-northeast-geo-stub and US-south-geo-stub)
  • more than two states in more than two regions, keep it as US-geo-stub (e.g., Frost Belt is in NE, Midwest, and West, IIRC)
BTW, these aren't "rules" I'm laying down - you are allowed to do what you think is best! This is simply what I did with the huge geo-stub split up by countries at the beginning of the year! Grutness...wha? 12:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only about 15 left in the main US geo category. I think we're done. =) --Spangineer (háblame) 00:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Spangineer, Fingers-of-Pyrex, Decumanus, and anyone else who helped out on this huge task, I present my wikithanks to you! Grutness...wha? 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Newly-discovered stub categories

[edit]

{{torture-stub}}

[edit]

No articles associated with it, and no category created. It probably should be TFD'd unless anyone suggests that it is useful. BlankVerse ∅ 02:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominated at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 06:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{liberalparty-stub}}

[edit]

Not on the stub types list. It also doesn't have its own stub category, and feeds into both Category:Party related stubs and Category:Liberal related stubs. If we decide to keep it (a great humber of articles link to it), we should make a decision if this sort of categorization is a good thing or not. On a related note, {{liberal-stub}} is double categorized too, but with Category:Liberal related stubs and Category:Politics stubs, which is clearly redundant - the latter is the parent category of the former. I propose creating a category for {{liberalparty-stub}}, and removing Category:Politics stubs from {{liberal-stub}} (adjusting the wording of the stub message accordingly) -- grm_wnr Esc 05:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good title - several countries have parties called the "Liberal Party" - not all of which have "liberal" policies (and deciding what is a liberal policy is pretty POV anyway - liberal in US politics is still fairly conservative by Scandinavian or New Zealand standards, for instance). Don't like it. Grutness|hello? 07:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The way the categorisation has been done is also pretty appalling, and is not in the least helpful. If no separate category was set up, then this should have been double stubbed. Now, of course, it's a case of trying to sift and sort through the "what links here" in an attempt to put things into a new category. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Category fixed. Grutness...wha?

{{2stub}}, {{3stub}}, {{Ad-stub}}, {{Award-stub}}

[edit]

With one of the recent changes in the WikiMedia software, you can now search just the Template namespace. You can use the following link to start at what I think is the beginning: All pages (Template namespace) - starting at "!". I've checked the first two pages-worth, from Template:- to Template:Basilan. I then checked any stub templates I didn't recognize against the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. I found the following "unlisted" stubs (although I think some else has already found and mentioned template:2stub.

Template:2stub would have been a great idea if there had been enough planning at the beginning so that template names matched category names. Unfortunately very few do, so the template absolutely must be deleted to prevent its misuse. Template:3stub is a weird orphan created by an anon and can be deleted. The award-stub should also be deleted with the articles moved into more appropriate categories (film-stub, lit-stub, etc.) (I found a very long list of awards List of prizes, medals, and awards, and although the few articles that I checked all needed some work, I wouldn't have called any of them stubs).

If there was a generic buisiness-stub, the ad-stub would probably not be needed, but without it, there are probably enough advertising stubs that are currently"hiding" in other stub categories to make the ad-stub worthwhile, (although I would probably rename it to advert-stub). BlankVerse ∅ 08:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone contacted the creator of these stubs to let them know what's happening with the stubs, and to ask them to come here first before creating them? Actually, to answer my own question, it doesn't seem so. I'll contact SagaCity and Erebus555... Grutness|hello? 09:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Award-stub to the stub types listing. Courtland 16:11, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

I've just had a look at {{3stub}}... and since the text was US Department of Defence(DoD) Handbook Work Breakdown Structure I was bold and speedied it. I've put {{2stub}} on tfd. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From "That was the tip of the iceberg" - deletions and retentions

[edit]
stub template created by when no.of articles type of stubs notes
{{Britcartoonist-bio-stub}} User: Hiding 1 May 1 (British cartoonists) Redirected to {{comics-creator-stub}}
{{censorship-stub}} User: Tedius Zanarukando March 30 2 (Censorship) No category - DELETED
{{CP-stub}} User: Soman 2 May 50+ (Communist Party) now listed at WP:WSS/ST
{{comicbookpub-stub}} User: Hiding 2 May 5 (Comics publishers) DELETED
{{Faroe-geo-stub}} User: Jogvanj 18 April 8 (Faroe Islands) now listed at WP:WSS/ST
{{Furniture-stub}} User: Hailey C. Shannon 19 April 2 (Furniture) now listed at WP:WSS/ST
{{MEast-stub}} User: BanyanTree 22 April 12 (Middle East) now listed at WP:WSS/ST
{{Paleoantropology-stub}} (sic) User: Nickshanks 27 April 1 (Palaeoanthropology) Misspelt, category not created - DELETED
{{Pcb21 stub test}} User: Pcb21 (-) (-) in user space only DELETED

Discussions from "That was the tip of the iceberg"

[edit]

I was bold and speedied the clearly nonsense "Eszett-stub", and redirected "JP-stub" to "Japan-stub" and "Uncategorized stub" to "Stub".

I haven't got the will-power to even put these on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types tonight, let alone do anything about them. As I said - I'm going to have a bit of a lie down now. Grutness|hello? 11:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that when I posted my info that everyone would follow my example and do a couple of pages at a time. If everyone pitched in then it would all get sorted out in about a week. But no....someone had to go through a heroic effort and tackle it all at once (and present the results all nicely formatted as well). I don't know whether I should award you a Wikipedia:Barnstar or recommend that you seek psychiatic help. ;-)
the latter is probably more accurate :) Actually it was a distractor task - it was either that or wash a blanket a cat had thrown up on. (I know - too much information) Grutness|hello?
It's interesting to see that a few of them a very new, but already well populated. It is also interesting to see that there are a couple of them that have been around for quite awhile (measured in wikinet time). Some of the templates sure have some really ugly names. BlankVerse ∅ 13:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I'd vote

  • keep: CP, MEast
  • delete: Stub3, Paleoantropology
And would be undecided about the others Grutness|hello? 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CP-stub should probably be renamed. I would also rename MEast-stub to MidEast-stub. BlankVerse ∅ 07:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEast keeps it in line with {{MEast-geo-stub}}... (MidEast to me always sounds like the area from Indiana to Missouri :) Grutness|hello? 13:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More discussions from the iceberg, plus {{academic-bio-stub}}

[edit]
Apologies. I am behind Britcartoonist and comicbookpub. I'm also going to have to offer up, apologies here, {{Academic-bio-stub}}, which I created when accidentally not logged in, so it appears under my IP address of 84.92.54.229. I hadn't realised there was a procedure for creating stubs. I appear to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick somwhere, I didn't understand the meaning of the text on the people stubs category page. I never read stub categories, which seems a little foolish now. Apologies. Is it best to delete the comicbookpub stub and the britcartoonist stub and then have me propose them when I have enough stubs up to populate them? The academic bio stub is probably best merged elsewhere. Hiding 15:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Academic-bio-stub will definitely be useful (a very similar one is currently in the proposals, above, and this is a better name for it, so why make extra work by deleting and restarting? both comicbookpub and britcartoonist would probably be currently covered by comics-creator-stub. Personally, I'd suggest moving the articles there for now and - if necessary - splitting categories off it if it grows too large. Mind you, that might require some rewording of comics-creator-stub, since cartoons and comics are not identical. Grutness|hello? 23:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad Academic-bio-stub came in handy. The transfers from britcartoonist and comicbookpub have ben done, so how do I propose deleting them? As for cartoons and comics not being identical, they are, historically. Comics, shortened from comic strip collections, comic strip being another name for strip cartoon, meaning cartoons arranged in a sequence. The problem appears to be that the usage of the term cartoonist to apply to people working within the comic book industry is patchy. But that's a whole different argument that is fizzling over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics Hiding 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
as a matter of information, I've added {{Britcartoonist-bio-stub}} to the stub types page Courtland 02:47, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Not that it's relevant to the stub discussion, but thank's for the info on cartoons/comics (I was always under the impression that a cartoon was a single frame and a comic strip was, well, a strip, so it's good to know a bit more about the similariies and differences). Both include putting the category up for deletion at WP:CFD. The template, you can either put up for deletion at WP:TFD, or keep it, simply changing the text so that it redirects to comics-creator-stub. The latter has two advantages - you don't have to go through a template-for-deletion vote, and it's still available as a name if there's ever a reason to revive it. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have listed Category:British cartoonist stubs for deletion and will redirect template as suggested. Comic Book Publisher stub is already listed for deletion, as is its template. Thanks for your help. Hiding 19:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed stub deletions

[edit]

Categories that include others should not be deleted: there will always be articles we can't fit anywhere precisely

{{2stub}}

[edit]

I did the same with this one (nominated at WP:TFD), which had been mentioned in the past as requiring deletion pretty quickly. Thatwas about a month ago... Grutness...wha? 05:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

several from the "Iceberg" (above)

[edit]

Unless there are any objections, I would like to propose the following stub deletions: Grutness...wha? 07:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Paleoantropology-stub}}

[edit]

Moved to WP:SFD

{{Censorship-stub}}

[edit]

Moved to WP:SFD

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive11&oldid=1086086097"