Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2005

[edit]

splitting {{UK-struct-stub}}

[edit]

This has about 1000 articles. Suggest splitting off some bits of it, but not clear which. Morwen - Talk 12:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London and Scotland would remove two large sections, I think. Grutness...wha? 06:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking geographically but more sort of church-stub etc but London and Scotland would be good idea, yes! Morwen - Talk 09:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a London WikiProject, so that one's definitely worth considering. Separating out buildings by use is viable, though - although that would need to tie in with all the struct-stub categories, so might need more thought. I could see a series of UK-church-stub, US-church-stub etc, and also UK-stadium-stub, Euro-stadium-stub, etc. The church one might be difficult, though, since it would be best if it covered all places of worship, not just Christian ones, so the naming of it might be a problem. I'd definitely go with London-struct-stub though - buildings by type could easily be split off that one later as well if necessary. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few days sorting {{rail-stub}} articles into, among others, {{UK-depot-stub}} which is already a subcategory of both {{UK-struct-stub}} and {{rail-stub}}. Many of the station articles had both rail-stub and UK-struct-stub, so sorting one also sorted the other; on articles that had both, I removed both and used the more specific stub category. I wouldn't necessarily object to sorting by location, but sorting by structure type seems more appropriate to me. slambo 19:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm, maybe. I still think that having a WikiProject able to find buildings on the city it's working on might make a London-struct-stub useful. But there'd be nothing wrong with having a UK-church-stub with London-church-stub as a subcat of it, so perhaps that would be the way to go. Wish there was some better term than church, though, to cover all places of worship, not just Christian ones. Grutness...wha? 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 2005

[edit]

More Math stubs

[edit]

I've had another look at the Mathematics stubs, after using the new categories (see above), to reduce the number to around 800. There are some more stub categories that might be useful to reduce that a bit further. I've done a count of the first page, and the most common ones are Number theory (12 articles), Applied mathematics (17 articles) and Category theory (10 articles). If that is typical for all 4 pages that would give 48 articles, 68, and 40 respectively. That might not be representative, as I removed about 30 articles from the first page in the middle of sorting, and the first page is what is left after that. Given that, we can predict a similar removal for the other pages removes about 100 articles, giving about 700, or 3.5 pages. This predicts 42, 60 and 35 articles. I've made a subpage with a list of the entries I've categorised: User:Silverfish/Math Categories. The Other category is for entries I've not given a category. Some might fit into existing or proposed category. There are almost 100 articles in that category, so categorising those might up the number a bit.

I think the case for Applied mathematics is pretty compelling, but I'm not sure about the other two.

There also the issue of the Geometry stubs category, which has grown to about 360 articles. I've been including the more Geometrical seeming bits of Topology in there, but has been big for quite a while. I don't have any suggestions for how to sort it. Any ideas would be appreciated. Silverfish 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some concrete examples of new math stub types. By the way, we should give Silverfish a big thanks, for he was constantly on my watchlist lately classifying the math stubs. Oleg Alexandrov 01:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'jm proposing Applied Mathematics ({{Appliedmath-stub}} or {{Mathapplied-stub}}), and tentatively proposing Category theory ({{Cattheory-stub}}), and Number theory ({{Numtheory-stub}}). Number theory might be a bit tricky with the overall with the Number stubs, but the ones I've counted are aren't about specific numbers or types of number. I haven't proposed anything for Geometry, as that's more of an aside. Silverfish 09:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. If a category of stubs is too big, the best thing to do is to split it into smaller more specific stub categories. Oleg Alexandrov 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Geometry stubs, and just from the names, a lot seem to be polyhedra, in the 3 dimensional sense. I'll propose {{Polyhedron-stub}}, which should remove a lot from the Geometry stubs category. This would cover articles about particular polyhedra. Silverfish 23:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2005

[edit]

US-hist-stub

[edit]

Some sub categories might be a good idea.

  • US-precolonial-hist-stub
  • US-colonial-hist-stub
    • US-UK-colonial-hist-stub for the eastern US
    • US-FR-colonial-hist-stub for the Louisana purchase area
    • US-ES-colonial-hist-stub for the southwest

I have been working on some French and Indian War British Forts in WV. They are relavent to UK and US history. We are not supposed to us two stubs, but to be accurate you need to, a US-UK-colonial-hist-stub would solve that problem, and these suggested stubs will define the era that the historical place or event belongs in. It will give it more context. --71Demon 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial thought is no. Double stubbing is not expressly prohibited, and the stub names proposed above are way too confusing to be useful. Can you give us some examples of some articles you've been working on? Here's one I've worked on recently: Fort Loudoun (Tennessee)—it's double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and US-struct-stub. Another is Spanish Florida—double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and Spain-stub (would be Spain-hist-stub if it existed). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Automobile stubs

[edit]
Also, please see Truck-stub below. Many truck articles are now classified under AUTO-stub.

Just had a look at Category:Automobile stubs, and the list has grown quite long. Propose to split into car manufacturers, so that all cars produced by Ford, would be listed in {{ford-auto-stub}}, all by GM in the {{gm-auto-stub}} and so on. bjelleklang 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overpopulated category certainly needs to be sorted. Please use hyphens in names (e.g., {{bmw-auto-stub}}). Would {{auto-part-stub}} (Category:Automobile part stubs) and/or {{auto-term-stub}} (Category:Automobile terminology stubs) be useful, too? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than by manufacturers, I think a better immediate split would be US-auto-stub, UK-auto-stub and Japan-auto-stub. Along with those that don't qualify in those subcats that would probably cut the category into four fairly even pieces. If any of those need further splitting, then manufacturer would be an obvious next level down. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably be a good short-term solution, but sooner or later, these lists would probably also have to be split up again, with quite a lot more articles to sort. I still think that creating subcategories based on manufacturer would be a better solution. bjelleklang 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that either proposed split is a good idea. I'm doubtful that a company based split is particularly viable. There are an awful lot of stubs that come from companies that only produced a few models and thus would never leave {{auto-stub}} save by becoming not a stub. Furthermore, editors interested in the models of a single manufacturer could easily enough start with that manufacturer's article and see what models are in need of being de-stubbed. A country based split also has its problems. Is Chrysler US or German? Is Jaguar UK or US, etc? So what do I propose instead?
  • First of all, there clearly are enough stubs for {{auto-corp-stub}} This would have the added benefit of also helping to trim the Corporation stubs down somewhat.
  • Secondly, An era-based split for the car models themselves. The only real problem is defining the eras. I would suggest the following, but I am flexible concerning the names and periods.

That gives us five stub types in all which should be enough to provide a first approximation. Caerwine 05:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds fair, although I suspect that many stub sorters will get the categories confused. BTW, shouldn't the first one be veteran-auto-stub? Or are veteran cars called brass cars in the US? Grutness...wha? 22:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that what in the UK are called veteran cars (before 1905) and Edwardian cars (1905-1918) are lumped together in the US as Brass Era cars. However, while the end of WWI is of fairly universal significance as a historical marking point, the death of Queen Vicky is a pretty much a UK thing. I fudged the categories slightly as well for ease of use, as I figure the end of WWI, the end of WWII, and the end of Disco, three notable disasters in human history, should be easy to remember for the amateur stub sorter. Caerwine 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
QV was 1901, but I get your point. As to the death of disco, I thought that was a celebration :). I'll accept the death of John Lennon as the third notable disaster though. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that I'm still not convinced, as there are close to 1400 stubs in the category. If we sort by production era, I don't think that it'll make the problem go away, only help to make some of the subcategories somewhat shorter. I do not agree with your argument that any future author could look at the manufacturer's article, as there are no way of telling if all models are listed there! Although your suggestion was good, it would involve quite a lot of work compared to sorting by manufacturer, as you would have to check every article, so I still think that sorting by manufacturer is a better idea. bjelleklang 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the automobile article, and suggest that the stubs are sorted in the same manner.
This gives the following:

bjelleklang 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Take a good look at the Automobile stubs. There are maybe 150 GM stubs, 100 Ford stubs, and 75 Daimler-Chrysler stubs in the category, and those companies are only able to reach the over 60 level by combining all articles from all brands used or acquired by those companies. I don't think any other manufacturer could reach 60 stubs because an awful lot of those stubs are for models from companies that went defunct after only producing a few models, and the ones that last tend to have most of their articles not be stubs. So after doing a manufacturer-based sort, of the 1538 suto stubs at present, we'd still be left with around 1200 stubs in the main category. However, what do you think about revising my proposed categories to be decade based:

Might be easier to keep track of for some people, tho they are a bit more fudgy with the names than my first idea. Caerwine 22:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have created {{auto-corp-stub}} as it was not at all controvesial or disputed and have begun to populate it. I have run into one complication tho. A number of the early automobile articles are about short-lived companies that produced nly one model and include info about both the comapany and the vehicle that produced it. For now, I'm generally leaving such stubs in {{auto-stub}} unless it's clear that the focus is on the company and not the car. Caerwine 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody have any serious objections to my suggestion (se above, total of 6 subcategories), I'll start sorting wednesday or thursday. Bjelleklang - talk 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason the categories were created as Category:Foo auto stubs (e.g. Category:Brass auto stubs) and not Category:Foo automobile stubs? --Mairi 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Truck stub

[edit]

Propose "TRUCK-stub" Currently all truck stubs: like truck manufacturers, trucking companies, terms, etc., are classified as AUTO-stubs. I would like to break-off the truck releated stubs.

{{Truck-stub}} template request I just started the Tank truck article and found no {{Truck-stub}} under "Transportation" so I added the generic {{stub}} template. It was soon found out (good for you guys) and it was replaced with the {{Van-stub}} which doesn't really fit very well. Anyone feeling creative out there, I think we should have a logo-enhanced {{Truck-stub}} template (a tank truck hauling several thousand gallons of gasoline/petrol ain't a van). Thanks, --hydnjo talk 00:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that category would be useful - question is, though, do you want it for trucks, or things like the article you mentioned, which is a lorry? And what about artics, which are a little bit bigger than lorries and a whole lot bigger than trucks (they're the same as the whole truck and trailer, in fact)? In other words, the term truck is used differently in differen countries - what I call a truck is what you'd probably call the tractor part of a truck. So we need a term that's a bit more language-neutral. Perhaps Bigrig-stub would be a solution...? Grutness...wha? 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Tank truck article will include small (home hydroseeding slurry or lawn fertilizer/pest control, up to 1000 gal.) to medium (local delivery heating oil or home septic removal, 1000-3000 gal.) to large (major delivery gasoline/petrol, over 3000 gal.) sized trucks. I'm not yet sure about the exact breakpoints so the examples may be imprecise. More importantly, the truck-stub template that I'm requesting would apply to most of the vehicles in the List of truck types or any other vehicle that someone thinks is a truck. The Bigrig-stub idea seems a bit narrow as there are small and medium trucks. I'm just hoping for something more descriptive than the {{van-stub}}notice that is now on the article. If it turns out that I'm making an unreasonable or undoable request or if the word "truck" is too ambiguous for a stub then I'll make do with what already exists.
Or, we could have two templates, {{truck-stub}} and {{lorry-stub}} so as to avoid a difficult international catchall. Or, how about a {{truck/lorry-stub}} or if you prefer a {{lorry/truck-stub}} template.
I understand the need to have some kind of triage to deal with stub proliferation but I don't think that "truck" is all that esoteric.

--hydnjo talk 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to have some kind of generic {{vehicle-stub}} under Transport, and then {{auto-stub}}, {{van-stub}}, {{bus-stub}}, {{motorcycle-stub}} and any others we need could be subcategories, if there seems to be sufficient demand for them. Odd vehicles that fall through the cracks in the definitions or that might be called a "lorry" somewhere and a "semi-trailer" elsewhere could just go into {{vehicle-stub}} until the semantics get sorted out. GTBacchus 21:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance here but you think that a {{vehicle-stub}} should supercede "truck"? My kid's bike is a vehicle! Tell you what, when you folks figure it all out, please as a courtesy (you know where I live) , let me know for future reference. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 22:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hydnjo, a vehicle is any "non-living means of transportation." This includes trucks/lorries. So it is obvious that {{vehicle-stub}} is about the only natural supercessor to {{truck-stub}}, just like {{sport-stub}} supercedes {{football-stub}}. Aecis 22:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility would be to have a generic vehicle-stub as a catch-all and to have something for trucks/lorries etc. if there's a general vehicle stub, then double hyphenating becomes an option, and we could make goods-vehicle-stub or haulage-vehicle-stub for anything from panel vans right up to Kenworths. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I caused so much anguish over a damn {{truck-stub}} request. Prior to the "stub sorting" effort I would have just made the template myself. In deference to your effort I held back and sought your approval. I also feel confident that this neuron flurry could have been put to better use. My apologies for bringing up such a mundane subject and wasting so much of your time. I continue to be supportive of your project and hope that it will serve us well. --hydnjo talk 07:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh :) Don't worry - this is standard practice here. And for good reason - changing the name of an article takes a couple of clicks - changing the name of a template-category combination takes a hell of a lot of effort, since it requires null-edits on every article that carries the template. So we want to be sure it's done right first time. I'm pretty sure that there will be a usable stub category soon - it's only the minor details that will take a bit of time. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:::::How do we know what is modern? (Erebus555 11:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
TRUCK-STUB

...is the name I want. Most people around the world know what a truck is, and those whose don't can be educated by.....US! Lorry=truck=camión de carga; cargo-carrier would be a second choice. How about: "Cargo-Vehicle-stub"...?? WikiDon 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy motor vehicle.........????
  • Although I haven't participated in this debate until now, I'd say that {{truck-stub}} is the best choice. It's simple, short, and almost universal; just about everyone who speaks english knows what it means. If the category gets large enough, subcats similar to the ones found in [[|Category:Automobile_stubs|auto stubs]] could be added. Also, I don't think we need to add to many categories, at the moment I'd say that {{bus-stub}}, {{truck-stub}} and {{motorcycle-stub}} should suit our needs. Bjelleklang - talk 19:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{footybio-stub}}

[edit]

(from WP:SFD) This category has been proposed for renaming from Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs. At the same time, a split seems in order, as there are currently over 2200 stubs. I've gone through about 15% of them and sorted them by continent, and counted Europe 214, Africa 54, South America 24, North America 16, Oceania 13, Asia 12. Within Europe the two biggest countries are England (59) and Scotland (21), with no others over 12. I'd suggest the following split:

Europe could possibly be split further in future, if other countries experience a spurt of stub growth. I've also simplified the category names, leaving out the word "soccer" where "football" is unambiguous (see also the subcats of Category:Football (soccer) stubs). sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - (BTW, this is Grutness, currently not logged in). 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Two complaints, one major and one minor:
The major is that in order to be consistent with the names we've used for other stubs, three of these should be {{Euro-footybio-stub}}, {{SouthAm-footybio-stub}}, and {{NorthAm-footybio-stub}}.
The minor is that unless your 15% is randomly picked from all over the alphabet, the actual distribution for all of them is likely to be quite different than what you have seen so far. In my past experience, Asian biographies tend to be underrepresented at the start of the alphabet, so unless you picked a different segment, I'm not too worried about that stub, but I do have a slight bit of concern with the Oceania stub. Nothing major since if it doesn't reach 60, it'll be real close, and it probably does reach 60. Caerwine 07:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, making the template names consistent makes sense (I thought that would be the minor complaint!) IIRC, I took the first ten names from each column on each category page, so there will be some clustering but all parts of the alphabet should be represented. I may do a more detailed check shortly to firm up those figures. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing what you can get done on a slow day at work...I've put revised figures above, and full census results here. It looks like Oceania does only just make it after all, but I think the convenience of splitting the stubs along exact confederation lines makes all these categories worthwhile. Some other country splits may be possible too, although after England and Scotland the largest is Brazil with 71, so that's probably not worthwhile yet. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two more points. One is that there's currently a discussion over whether to have stub categories use adjective or noun forms. I.e., Category:European football biography stubs or Category:Europe footnall biography stubs. The other is that if most of those Oceania stubs are Australia stubs, as I would suspect, it might be just as well to leave them sitting in the main category and sorting out an Australia soccer biography stub when the time is right. Depends on how many stubs would be left in the base category if an Oceania were created. Caerwine 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, I know of one kiwi stub-maker who is soccer mad (he's made half a dozen NZ soccer club stubs lately), so don't be surprised if there are quite a few New Zealand players in there as well. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance, I saw the best part of a dozen NZ soccer players in there (admittedly I had a hand in the creation of a few of them, so they were easier to spot!). That would be 20% of the Oceania footballers. Given how closely associated (no pun intended) the two countries are in terms of soccer (about as close as England and Wales, in terms of leagues and where national players play), I'd stick with oceania-footybio-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{footy-stub}} and {{euro-footyclub-stub}}

[edit]

I have now gone through Category:European football club stubs. I already proposed {{Sweden-footyclub-stub}} (45 stubs) and {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}} (58). To that I would like to add {{NI-footyclub-stub}} (Northern Ireland, currently 35 stubs) and {{Belgium-footyclub-stub}} (41 stubs). A search through the football clubs by nation categories might bring these countries above threshold level. Next in line would be Italy (currently 29 stubs) and Finland (26). I would also like to move all the club articles that haven't been restubbed continentally yet to a new club stub reservoir, {{footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? Aecis 14:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will indefinitely postpone the splitting of {{euro-footyclub-stub}}, which doesn't imperatively need to be taken care of. However, as I have noted in another proposal, I've now gone through the letters A to G of {{footy-stub}} again, and I've already come across 81 football-related organizations, player unions, associations, federations and confederations. So I would like to propose {{footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations. Aecis 22:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the count, and there are 120 "{{footy-org-stub}}s" in {{footy-stub}}. Methinks this is more than enough for a separate stub category. Aecis 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished restubbing the leftover clubs from {{footy-stub}} to {{footyclub-stub}} - there are 100, so I doubt if {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} is going to get big enough (currently 19). I'd support a merge of these back into the parent category. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most clubs in {{footyclub-stub}} are from Asia (42). Canada has 13, Australia 12, Mexico 9 and 30 are from other countries. So under the given circumstances, I think it's best to move the African clubs from {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} to {{footyclub-stub}}. Once {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} has been empty for 24 hours, it can be speedily deleted (right?). Aecis 21:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses stub - {{JW-stub}}

[edit]

created as {{JehovahsWitnesses-stub}}

There is a growing number of Jehovah's Witnesses-related articles that are being given a {{christianity-stub}} or {{reli-stub}}. It would help those interested in improving these articles to have a stub solely for JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I lite the idea for the stub, but not the name (we avoid abbrevs wherever possible). This might be an exception to that rule though - I can't think of anything other referred to as JW (except for one of my country's top sportsmen). Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a fan of abbreviated stubs either; the only reason I suggested it was the Catholic one being {{RC-stub}}. Anyway, how's {{Jehovahs-Witnesses-stub}}? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be a sub-stub/cat of Christianity? In which case, perhaps {{JW-christianinty-stub}}, or less specifically {{JW-reli-stub}}? --KGF0 ( T | C ) 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split {{France-geo-stub}}

[edit]

About 2000 articles use this stub (see Category:France geography stubs). Dividing this by region, as listed in Régions in France may be the most appropriate way to perform the split. Each region stub category would average 80-90 articles, with a few hundred left over for the original catch-all category. Some regions may not have a sufficient number of stubs to warrant their own stub category, though I haven't looked at the numbers yet to draw such a conclusion. Mindmatrix 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely doubtful that each region would have a number near the average. We just split Japan by prefecture, and while the average would have been in the 80 stub range, individual prefectures ranged from a low of 35 to a high of almost 300.

I just ran the numbers; they're not exact, but they are good estimates:

Regions to which I've linked probably deserve their own stubs; others may need it in the future, but should use the general one for now. Mindmatrix 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The top six look definitely splittable (using a "pass mark" of 75). I must admit some surprise that Brittany/Bretagne/Breizh doesn't come out higher. With Ile-de-France, would a separate Paris-geo-stub be useful, or would that be gilding the fleur-de-lys? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that not all articles have the region name listed; I did a search using the département information, but that wasn't always listed either. And in the case you cited, I only looked for Bretagne; I've updated the count to include the results from searching for Brittany. I couldn't find any stubs using Breizh. Note also that I limited my seach to articles currently marked with {{France-geo-stub}}. I've also updated the counts for Nord-Pas-de-Calais after refining the search - 23 articles with both département names, and 35 each using one name = 93 articles.
I don't think we need a separate Paris stub. None of these proposed stub categories will fill two pages, which is not an overwhelming number to search through. For the record, 130 of those stubs are for Paris, which makes it the second-largest département, after Calvados (in Basse-Normandie) with 206. Rhône is third, with 90.Mindmatrix 02:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure but Breizh may only refer to the Breton language anyway. Did you add in those marked "Corsica" and "Picardy" to those marked "Corse" and "Picardie"? :) BTW, when it comes to making the templates, I propose that we ignore accents and stick to the common English names where they exist (Brittany/Corsica/Normandy, etc). It makes sense to use accents in articles and category names, but I think we can make do without them for the templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated counts to include Picardy and Corsica (I already had Corsica, but didn't include it for some reason), and I've added suggested names for the new stubs, taking into account your concerns. Since some region names are long, I've truncated where it seemed appropriate, using names that would be most recognized and least ambiguous. Our current cut-off is Midi-Pyrénées, then? That'll give us 7 new stubs/cats. Mindmatrix 15:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using {{CentreFrance-geo-stub}} instead of just {{Centre-geo-stub}}, which can mean just anything. Conscious 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I also wouldn't see any problem with {{RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}}. As to what to do with Normandy, though... BasseNormandie might be better, but I'd be easily swayed either way. And yes to the top seven. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it to {{CentreFrance-geo-stub}}, though it probably won't be created anyway, and {{RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}} is short enough - and more descriptive too. There's at least one reason I'd prefer using {{BasseNormandie-geo-stub}} over {{LowerNormandy-geo-stub}}: the term Basse-Normandie appears in most articles that need to be stubbed with this template. Mindmatrix 00:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support the top nine above "on spec", and anything that hits 60 on the basis on an accurate count, as and when. Alai 16:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the first seven stub templates and categories. Let's see how these fill out before creating anything else, to determine how accurate the counts were. Mindmatrix 16:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just split the Rhône-Alpes stubs - there were 372 that I found, including articles that weren't previously stubbed, or had a stub other than {{France-geo-stub}}. Mindmatrix 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing the Basse-Normandie split - 468 articles so far, and I just found a whole whack of 'em that have either no stub or no category... Mindmatrix 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This split is essentially complete; for some reason, only 45 stubs are in the Champagne-Ardenne geo stubs category. All other stub categories had more articles than expected. Mindmatrix 18:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{law-bio-stub}} splits

[edit]

I propose splitting {{law-bio-stub}} into lawyers and judges. I'm not sure what to call the splits; what do you call lawyers in British English? As far as American English is concerned, it could be lawyer (sounds the best in my opinion), attorney, advocate, or council; although the latter 2 are a little unclear as to what they refer to. Aren't judges called justices in British English?

As to the numbers: I looked through the first 58 (I know that's not very random, but OK) and 30 of them were lawyers and 20 were judges. 3 or 4 were mentioned as being both, and I counted them as both.

Further splits for {{law-bio-stub}} could be {{law-academic-bio-stub}}, for law professors and the such, but I think it would be better to get the lawyers and the judges out of the way first.

Further splits of the lawyers and the judges would probably be by nationality but I doubt that more than US and UK will make sense.--Carabinieri 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With <400 articles in {{law-bio-stub}}, I don't see the urgency, especially when it is all too likely that we would have a slow but continuous trickle of stubs from {{lawyer-stub}} to {{judge-stub}}. I say just leave this be and allow {{US-bio-stub}} and {{UK-law-bio-stub}} if there are 60+ known stubs, but that would be mainly to help split {tl|US-law-bio-stub}} and {tl|UK-bio-stub}} not {tl|law-bio-stub}}. Caerwine 01:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have a "slow but continuous trickle of stubs"?--Carabinieri 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever a lawyer with a stub article becomes a judge. It wouldn't happen often, and we could hope the occassion would inspire someone to make that person's article into a full article, but it will happen. Caerwine 23:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The generic term in BE is just "lawyer", though there is of course the split into solicitors and barristers. Judges are also generally referred to as judges; "justice" occurs as part of the title of some judges (justice of the peace, Lord Justice so-and-so), but not, unlike the US, as a synonym or direct alternative to "judge". Of course, I say "British", but England and Wales have system of law and set of terminology, and Scotland another (sheriff court, procurator fiscal...).

That's all by the by, though. I agree with Caerwine, why not, a) not bother? There are many more pressing splits to hand. Or b), split by nationality, first. It's not even a terribly "clean" split, since many practice both at once, and obviously most judges will previously have been lawyers, so we could end up with a lot of double-stubbing. Alai 05:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Germany-geo-stub}} splits

[edit]

I'm pretty sure that every land (the German equivelant to the American states) will deserve it's own cat except maybe Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. Therefore I propose the following:

We can add Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen as necessary once we've gotten these out of the way.--Carabinieri 18:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest getting rid of a few hyphens:
WP:WSS seems to use the hyphens mainly to distinguish the separate parts of stubs, in this case the region (the land), the nature of the stub (geo) and the stub itself. This can be compared to WestVirginia, SouthDakota and SouthAfrica. Aecis 18:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to be about due. Agree with Aecis on the hyphens, but I'd have to oppose the abbreviations, which strike me as even less standard, familiar, or useful than the US 2-letter postal codes for states, which we keep trying to prevail on people not to use. I'd be less against "Germany-BW-geo-stub", etc, as redirects, if people were to find those useful in doing the split (or otherwise).
However, there's <900 of these stubs, split between 13 proposed sub-stub-types (and 16 lander total). I'll betcha dollars to jelly doughnuts that some of these are doing to be below the 60 stubs "viability" threshold. Anyone fancy doing a count? Undersized ones should be delayed, or grouped if some logical criterion suggests itself (though even one split will reduce g-g-s below 4 pages). Alai 18:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BW and NRW are known and, especially NRW, used in Germany. The problem with Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania that in German it's called Mecklenburg-Vorpommern making an abbreviation problematic. We could use {{Mecklenburg-geo-stub}}, but that could also be interpreted as only including Mecklenburg. I think we could start with the "safe laender" Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, eg; but I could also volunteer to count them.--Carabinieri 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say totally unused and unknown: just moreso (at least in English) than abbreviations we've already rejected using. I'd happily agree with starting with the "safer" ones. (Say, the top four of the following (thanks, MM).) Alai 21:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick google search (restricted to en.wikipedia.org), and got the following:
  • Bavaria - 82
  • Baden-Württemberg - 56
  • North Rhine-Westphalia - 50
  • Lower Saxony - 48
  • Berlin - 37
  • Thuringia - 30
  • Saxony-Anhalt - 29
  • Hesse - 28
  • Saxony - 26
  • Rhineland-Palatinate - 22
  • Schleswig-Holstein - 19
  • Brandednburg - 17
  • Hamburg - 14
  • Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania - 7
  • Saarland - 5
  • Bremen - 5
Note, however, that some articles may identify in which district a location is in, but not the state; for example, Apensen. This skews the numbers downward. In order to get a better count, we need to add totals for searches on each district, excluding the state name (all articles which have the state name have already been captured). For example, googling for site:en.wikipedia.org "This German location article is a stub." stade -"lower saxony". This returns 2 results, increasing the count for Lower Saxony to 50. Unfortunately, there are many districts; you could probably search for them in batches (google has a 32-term limit on searches) - I count 13 more articles for Lower Saxony, giving 61 total, when searches for all districts are included. Mindmatrix 20:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought Germany was yet at the stage of needing splitting - for the most part I'd be happier splitting out a few of the remaining countries before regions in countries, though some regional splits (where the stub numbers are very high) are a bit more necessary. France, the UK, US, Australia and Japan all needed to be split - all had close to or over 2000 stubs. There aren't yet 1000 German geo-stubs, and if the count above is anything to go by, Bavaria's the only one of the Lander that reaches threshold anyway. If we're not careful, we'll be in serious danger of creating so many regional geo-stubs that we don't know what we've got and what we haven't. If we do go ahead with it, I'd be strongly against redirects from abbreviations, BTW. Nowhere else has then, since they can be ambiguous, so Germany shouldn't either. I'm also beginning to wonder whether the mountain-stubbers have a point. Perhaps we should be thinking primarily of splitting by country (and in some cases by region), and then by type of feature. Not having mountain-stub per se, but having a Switzerland-mountain-stub as a subset of Switzerland-geo-stub, for instance. Charging into smaller and smaller regional splits may be counter-productive, though. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's over 800, so it's definitely at the stage of splitting, by our own guidelines on such. Remember there's only 16 laender, so that means several of them will certainly be "viable", unlike the issues with US states and UK counties. I'd in theory agree with you on type-of-feature, but in practice the vast majority of geo-stubs seem to be settlements, so it wouldn't generally get us very far. OTOH, if someone suddenly created stubs on all 300 Scottish Munros, say, it'd be quite attractive. Alai 01:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the proposed redirects at all. BW is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2code for Botswana, and RP is a reserved ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the Philipines (due to usage in another set of international two-letter codes). However, any that meet the 60 stub threshold, I say go for it! As for names, I suggest aqueesing together spaces but keeping hyphens that are part of the name, ala {{Mecklenburg-WesternPomerania-geo-stub}} and {{NorthRhine-Westphalia-geo-stub}} Caerwine 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I counted the first page of stubs (199 stubs) and here are my results:

  • Baden-Württemberg: 27
  • Bavaria: 23
  • North Rhine-Westphalia: 23
  • Thuringia: 22
  • Lower Saxony: 20
  • Schleswig-Holstein: 17
  • Rhineland-Palatinate: 15
  • Hesse: 12
  • Saxony-Anhalt: 10
  • Saxony: 9
  • Berlin: 7
  • Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: 6
  • Brandenburg: 2
  • Hamburg: 2
  • Saarland: 1
  • Bremen: 1

There are currently a total of almost 860 stubs in this category. Assuming that these numbers are representative of all the stubs in the category (which they should be more or less, since they are all german names for towns, eliminating the possibility of a language bias), the first six or seven laender should get a cat. If someone wants me to count all of the stubs, I'll do that but I don't think it's necessary.

As to the proposal of splitting by feature: the feature, which received the most stubs was (except settlement, of course) river (6 stubs), not nearly enough to justify a cat.--Carabinieri 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Japan stub sorting suggests that names may cluster, though that may be specific to Japan, whose place names in english most often start with the letters H, K, M, N, S, T and Y. I don't think we need to count all the stubs, but I also don't think we need seven new stubs (yet). The top three in each of our lists are the same, so let's start with those, and see what we're left with after the initial split.
I'm also not in favour of the redirects, and I'd like to suggest trimming the stub names down a bit where it makes sense to do so. I think splitting by feature should be done in addition to geographical splitting, and further that this type of split be done at the country level only. Hence, mountains would receive two stubs - one for the region they're in, one for their country's mountain stub. Mindmatrix 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm the only one who wants the redirects. If I may, I would suggest, however, that at least Baden-Württemberg be accesible with both {{Baden-Württemberg-geo-stub}} and {{Baden-Wuerrtember-geo-stub}}.--Carabinieri 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with {{Baden-Wurttemberg-geo-stub}} (with no umlaut), since that's the most common spelling in English. There isn't a hard and fast rule about it here, but we do avoid accent marks in template names, for ease of typing. Grutness...wha? 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Primate-stub}}

[edit]

We've got about 75 primate stubs that I can count that are tagged as just mammal stubs. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical to me: parent is quite largeish, if not quite fissile-unstable yet. Alai 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Struct-stubs

[edit]

Currently, struct-stub is a bit of a mess. We've been splitting by location and also by building use. So we've got Germany, UK, US, Canada, India, Masts, Churches, Universities... The whole thing needs a bit of work. Having said that, the following would be useful:

I've been counting the stadiums in {{footy-stub}}, and I've found 102 stadium stubs. So this one should easily make it. Aecis 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the number of Coeania struct stubs should get very close to 100 after I've finished re-stubbing the Melbourne categories. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created both, as {{Stadium-stub}} and {{Oceania-struct-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, I think we can benefit from Poland-struct-stub. I have been going through Poland-stubs and Poland-geo-stubs and there would be a few dozen of structures to channel to Poland-struct-stub cat. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you think of natural structures? See my proposal above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They get Poland-geo-stub - and if that category gets too big, they'd be split by region within Poland - same as all other countries. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More geo-stubs

[edit]

I've also completed the latest tally, and the following look to be ripe to split:

Of these, the only real problem one is New Brunswick - it would almost certainly mean getting rid of maritimes-geo-stub and dropping the dozen or so Prince Edward Island stubs back into Canada-geo-stub (which would be considerably smaller by then anyway. NB has over 100 stubs of its own, though. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like user:Morwen jumped the gun a bit and has made the two English county ones in the couple of hours since I made the proposal... Grutness...wha? 06:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all these splits, and also agree on the elimination of {{Maritimes-geo-stub}}; however, I think we should not delete it immediately, since it is probable that other PEI location stubs will appear soon, perhaps warranting its own stub/cat - I'd like to avoid multiple re-stubbing of articles. Also, I was just going to go ahead and make the Canadian templates, given previous precedent (and current criteria) for the provincial stubs. Mindmatrix 19:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll load up the stub-splits page. The problem with keeping the maritimes stub for now is that PEI only has 10-15 stubs at the moment, but you're right about re-stubbing twice, so I'll agree to let it stand. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually completed the Canadian splits; the Maritimes category is down to 18 articles. I propose that it be deleted, and merged to the Canada geo stubs (as you mentioned) by the end of October, if it hasn't reached a minimum of 40 articles by then (note that I'll be creating some stubs). If it does reach that minimum, I propose we rename it to {{PEI-geo-stub}} or {{PrinceEdwardIsland-geo-stub}}, or raise the issue again in this forum. Feel free to set a different minimum requirement, keeping in mind the date, of course. Mindmatrix 03:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well done - and sorry that i didn't get the lists there in time (I got sidetracked working on the renamed malborne categories). I've added the NJ, iraq and guinea lists. As for PEI, even with a small number it might make sense to finish it off and change it over - and do Yukon and NWT, for that matter, since they're the only three provinces/territories left to do. Grutness...wha? 03:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished splitting the New Jersey stubs - 168 in all. I was going to suggest splitting off New Hampshire and Maine, just to finish off the US northeast, but there are only 98 stubs left in that category though. Mindmatrix 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the splits are complete. The Iraq category has 74, Guinea has 70. Mindmatrix 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{India-geo-stub}}

[edit]

I have a suggestion. Currently, all India related geo stubs are bunched together and the page is gradually becoming unwieldy and simply a long list of places in alphabetical order. I think if these stubs are re-organized in state-wise sub-stubs (like the existing ones: {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{Kerala-geo-stub}}), the page will have a lot of value-addition. I may also add that without coming here, I added two more such sub-stubs: {{Jharkhand-geo-stub}} and {{Bihar-geo-stub}}. Mairi pointed out the significance of proposing creation of sub-stubs here for valuable comments and observations of other users. I think that all India related geo-stubs may be split into state-wise stubs for better organization/ indexing of all India related geo-stubs. Thus, there will ultimately be as many India geo sub-stubs as are states in India – for example: {{Gujarat-geo-stub}}, {{UttarPradesh-geo-stub}} and so on. This will make the work of user/s interested in developing geo-stubs of a particular state of India, and I may repeat shall surely be a value addition to India-geo-stubs page. I invite suggestions and further comments. --Bhadani 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as with the recently split Japan-geo-stub, this is probably a good idea. Again, as with Japan, the way to proceed will be to see which Indian states pass the threshold for splitting (I'd suggest about 80 stubs), and split them off first. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That should be ok I think. --Bhadani 13:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs of {{Band-stub}}

[edit]

Currently this stub (under Music) is 22 pages long – I propose that two sub-stubs be created:

Checking the first three pages of {{Band-stub}} yielded over 200 articles that could go to {{US-band-stub}} and 100 to {{UK-band-stub}} – and there's still 19 more pages to go! Articles not conforming to the new sub-stubs would remain in {{Band-stub}}. Any thoughts? --Bruce1ee 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half-inclined to say "speedy!", but it looks like there are so many of these that yet further splits will be necessary, sooner rather than later. If that pattern holds, there'd be 1500 US bands, which would be waaaaaay in excess of what'd be required for a further split. (By genre, say?) Though I suppose a 'root' category will be necessary anyway; I just wouldn't necessarily bother sorting them immediately, if they'll just have to be re-sorted almost immediately. (Should we have a shortcut at WP:Sisyphus?) The same would be somewhat true of the UK ones. Alai 17:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to sort by genre. The first possible templates that come to mind are {{rock-band-stub}}, {{rnb-band-stub}}, {{hiphop-band-stub}}, {{metal-band-stub}}, {{punk-band-stub}} and perhaps {{jpop-band-stub}}, {{reggae-band-stub}} and {{ska-band-stub}}. Aecis 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure genre is so simple when it comes to bands. In my experience, plenty of bands fall outside easy categorisation in one genre. And I think "rock" is vague enough it could be considered to include all the genres you mentioned... Sorting by country doesn't seem so bad. Genre could be useful to some extent, especially within the huge country divisions, though. --Alynna 23:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with A.K on all points. "Rock" would probably have to be refined to some set of sub-species, like indie-, prog-, AOR-, etc, or some such. Per-country is the more clear-cut place to start, even if it almost immediately gets us back to the genre issue for the Big Two. (Hopefully not too many UK-jpop-band-stubs to worry about, though I've been wrong before...) Alai 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps by composition, at least as a first stage? Obviously a count would need to be done, but {{orchestra-stub}}, {{big-band-stub}}, {{singinggroup-stub}}, would all be distingishable mainly by the instruments played rather than the style of music. Another possibility might be {{backing-band-stub}} for a band such as the E-Street Band that's notable mainly because they were paired with a notable front man. Caerwine 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be far happier with by nationality than by genre, but Caerwine's suggestion has merit (though I'd make it orchestra-stub, jazzband-stub, singinggroup-stub, and backinggroup-stub). Perhaps that first, then by nationality? Genre's pretty amorphous for a lot of bands and you'll end up with arguments about several, I'm sure. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what's the consensus? Splitting by nationality first I think would be easier, and then by genre? How's this for a revised proposal?

If this is acceptable, we just need to settle on the genres. --Bruce1ee 07:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my proposal again, this time showing the genre-within-nationality and the projected counts (counted the first 3 pages then projected to 22 pages). Those stubs with less than 80 hits I've rejected.

--Bruce1ee 10:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've been consistent about always keeping nationality at the start, so if this scheme is followed, it should be {{US-hiphop-band-stub}}, etc. and not {{hiphop-US-band-stub}}. Compare with {{US-film-actor-stub}} and the other sub types of {{US-actor-stub}}. Caerwine 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that – I should've looked at the naming convention of existing stubs. I'll amend accordingly. --Bruce1ee 05:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs of {{theat-stub}}

[edit]

I would like to propose a stub for plays {{play-stub}} and one for dramatists and playwrights {{playwright-stub}} that would simply be for playwrights. These stubs could also be categorized under {{lit-stub}} and {{writer-stub}}, respectively. These stubs would help to lessen the number of {{theat-stub}}s. What say you? Ganymead 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. --Alynna 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I've been going thru {{lit-stub}} some recently, and one for plays would be quite useful. --Mairi 23:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of clarification...the playwright stub is for writers, poets AND playwrights. I'd like to see one that just includes playwrights. Carry on! *Exeunt* Ganymead 01:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with just theat-stub and I use it quite frequently...I'd misspell it if it were theater-stub...I'm too comfortable typing theatre. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, {{theatre-stub}} and {{theater-stub}} are both redirects. If the non-standard abbreviation is a bother, I suppose we could always go to {{theatrical-stub}}, and be nonstanard because of the use of an adjective instead of a noun. Even if wr don't we might want to change Category:Theatre stubs to Category:Theatrical stubs. Caerwine 03:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wars and Rumors of Wars

[edit]

I've come across two wars that each have easily over 80 stubs for them already.

I've found 97 stubs so far for a {{NapoleonicWars-stub}}. I asked over on WikiProject Battles and they indicated a preference for such a stub to include both the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary Wars in a single stub, since for those who do split them apart, there's no agreement over where to put the split. This stub would include wars between the European powers from 1792 to 1815.

I've also found 85 stubs so far pertaining to the American Civil War. I'd prefer to name this {{AmericanCivilWar-stub}} rather than {{USCivilWar-stub}} for two reasons. One is that it wouldn't be right to ignore the CS, and the other is that if I can find enough stubs, I intend to propose a {{BritishCivilWar-stub}} to cover the English Civil War and the interrelated conflict in Scotland and Ireland. Finding enough stubs for the BCW and some other wars I hope to find the necessary stubs will require going thru the history and mil-bio stubs looking for war-related stubs which I haven't done yet. Caerwine 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea... though I'm a little hesitant on the names. The ECW may have spilled over into ireland and Scotland, but it's universally known as the English Civil War. Perhaps a Cromwellian-stub (England/Ireland) and Jacobite-stub (Scotland) instead, with slightly different boundaries as to what is covered by them, might be a way around this? American Civil War I've no problem with as a name, though (BTW, if you're in contact with WP Battles, you might like to ask them about the battle-stub/war-stub problem listed on WP:WSS/D). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite universally... "Wars of the Three Kingdoms", and "British Civil Wars" are more generally-scoped terms. I wouldn't object to EnglishCivilWar-stub being construed "loosely", if there's enough stubs for this to be worthwhile. (There's approximately 0 of these in mil-stub, IIRC.) On war-stub, They're already discussing it "locally" at the WPs, I trust they'll report back in due course. Alai 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there will be many stubs for the English Civil Wars, if only because the subject was quite well-represented in the 1911 EB; many of the articles on the subject were imported directly from it. If it were created, the main proviso would be to avoid naming it {{ThreeKingdomsWars-stub}} or the like, for obvious reasons.
As far as {{War-stub}} versus {{Battle-stub}}, the respective projects are in the process of discussing a merger; assuming that occurs successfuly (probably in a few days), we'll be in a position to redirect {{War-stub}} to a place of your choice :-)
On a related note: any possibilities for a {{Sengoku-stub}}? Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't seem very related. :) I don't know, how are they sorted at present, and roughly how many are there at present? I did wonder at one point whether {{puzzle-stub}} would be a plan: there were certainly quite a few puzzles in {{game-stub}}. Alai 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that you're confusing Sengoku with sudoku ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It must be my sinuses displacing the other contents of my head. :) Part of my question remains material, though: how many, and where are they? I counted 17 Japanese-related articles in mil-stub, only a few of them mediaeval; are there lots lurking in mil-bio, or someplace...? Alai 03:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens in battle-stub; I don't know if further splitting involving that is of interest, however. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Battle-stub is certainly big enough for splitting to be useful, but this sounds more like it'd be an exercise in double-stubbing for these cases, rather of splitting per se. This is more of an exercise in splitting (or starting?) a Japanese-history-related stub category though, really, I think. Alai 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I always find it a battle putting the numbers into tyhe right squares... on a more serious note, a Napoleonic-stub (by that or another name) might also be useful. Grutness...wha? 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that {{Sengoku-stub}} can wait until we have a {{Japan-hist-stub}} to subdivide. As for Cromwell, I've come across 19 stubs so far for the rucki that the Lord Protector was involved with. As might be expected, the Battle stubs are all historical, so of the cats I've searched so far, they've provided most of the feeder stock. Caerwine 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman-stubs

[edit]

The Ottomans have the misfortune of having had an empire that at its height covered parts of three continents. There are well over 60 Ottoman-related stubs but no stub type for them. Therefore I propose a {{Ottoman-stub}} for them. (I'd also propose a {{Byzantium-stub}} for the same reason but I haven't found 60 Byzantine stubs yet.) Caerwine 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology-stub

[edit]

We have template:anthropologist-stub, but no template:anthropology-stub. Anthropology is an important science, and many articles that are now tagged template:culture-stub or template:socio-stub would benefit from it. Examples: avunculism, ancestor worship, auxology or cultural artifact. Plus we even have an empty Category:Anthropology stubs, parent to anthropologist-stubs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably well fill a gap - there's quite a bit in culture-stub, archaeology-0stub, and maybe even mammal-stub that could take this. support. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly support Evolauxia 06:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: going in other direction, I think we would also benefit from template:sociologist-stub. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An anthropology stub is, I think, long overdo. I know our hard-working stub-sorters are fond of abbreviated names; perhaps they'd be interested to know that "anthro" is a pretty common one. {{anthro-stub}}, anyone?--Pharos 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're actually not that fond of abbreviations here - we try to avoid them wherever possible. Mind you, anthro is pretty unambiguous... Grutness...wha? 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cyprus-stub}}

[edit]

I would like to propose a stub for topics relating to Cyprus. In many cases, I find it wrong to use either {{Greece-stub}} or {{Turkey-stub}}. Cyprus has been an independent country for 45 years. Here is the proposed stub. The code is based on the stubs for {{Greece-stub}} and {{Turkey-stub}}. The flag size (30px) is based on {{Denmark-stub}} and {{Sweden-stub}}.

File:Cyprus flag large.png  This Cyprus-related article is a stub.You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Category:Cyprus stubs

I had not seen the page on this procedure so I'd already created it (my error, sorry!) I have so far used it on just a few articles, but I hope to write more articles on Cyprus-related topics. --Valentinian 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's made... it will probably be useful though. Note though that any geography items relating to Cyprus should be double-stubbed with both this and euro-geo-stub (until such time as there are enough for a separate cyprus-geo-stub, which there aren't yet). Grutness...wha? 06:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I can easily double-stub them. I can see that another user has already created (and renamed) the corresponding category: "Cyprus stubs instead of "Cyprus-related stubs". Should the category be re-named to be consistent with other national categories "Greece-related stubs", "France-related stubs" etc.)? --Valentinian 09:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite the opposite - we're slowly trying to change over all the categories that have "related" as part of their name, since it's not needed. Category:Cyprus stubs is fine. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flag will have to go from the stub, as it is a potential source of controversy given the divided nature of the island. An outline of Cyprus, without the other flag elements should prove to be acceptibly neutral, but as the flag is firmly identified with one of the two sides, it's not sufficiently neutral. This is comparable to the avoidance of the use of the PRC flag in the generic Chinese stubs. Caerwine 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're probably right! Makes me glad to live in peaceful Scandinavia. I guess that two flags is not an option either. Well, I've changed the image to the NASA map of Cyprus (I'd rather have had a white background, but I think it'll do for now. So the new layout is:
 This Cyprus-related article is a stub.You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Category:Cyprus stubs
I really like that image, and I think it shows the island in the most beautiful month of the year. BTW, regarding the China-stub, the image of the Chinese Dragon has been listed for deletion. --Valentinian 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, of all the drawings I've added to Wikipedia, the one I'm happiest with is the (IMHO) neat political solution I added to Korea-geo-stub. As for the China-stub image, I've changed it to one that should do at least temporarily (and maybe longer if no-one can come up with anything better). Grutness...wha? 03:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The Korean image is a very nice image, but I'm not sure what would fit the bill in the case of Cyprus. An image of the Kyrenia ship perhaps? Problem is, it's not that well known outside of Cyprus - and I don't have a free image! For the moment, I think I'll stick to the map. --Valentinian 07:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Japan-hist-stub}}

[edit]

As per the comments above from Caerwine and myself, regarding Sod^H^Hengoku related stubs. Alai 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Macao-stub}}

[edit]

There are at least 39 articles, including location articles, suitable to be tagged as Macao-stub. Most of these articles are already tagged with other stub types, such as {{asia-struct-stub}}, {{food-stub}} and {{tourism-stub}}. Placing them under a category will help editors interested in Macao to expand them. Since both spellings (i.e. Macau and Macao) are used in English, it would be best for either one to be redirected to the other. — Instantnood 19:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 39 is rather slim, especially if it's to cover both -geo- and general stubs. I think I'm probably going to regret saying this, but ordinarily these would simply be categorised under {{china-stub}} and {{china-geo-stub}}, both of which are largeish, but sub-critical. Alai 19:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say lumping these entries into China-stub would be far from desirable, and wouldn't be helpful for editors. There are slimmer stub types, e.g. category:Gibraltar-related stubs. — Instantnood 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they're not usually listed with china-stub, so that's not a concern - the geo-stubs are in Asia-geo-stub, to start with. 39 is pretty slim, given that you're trawling several categories that are hardly overburdened. As for Gibraltar-stub, it was created without being proposed here and is one of several currently on a list for potential pruning via SFD. My advice (don't tell anyone I said this...) is to create a few more Macanese stubs. If the number suddenly shot up, then there'd be more chance of a separate stub being viable. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{China-geo-stub}} explicitly excludes Hong Kong, Macau, amd Taiwan from its area of coverage. {{China-stub}} is less exclusive, but it has sub types for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet nonetheless. I agree that 40 stubs is rather slim (Macau Grand Prix is a stub probably not tagged by ntnood}, but if there is someone who is planning to actively work on Macau-related topics, I wouldn't object to a {{Macau-stub}} with a 'u' and not an 'o'. Caerwine 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed the "Mainland China" stub category, which I think is itself in variance to "normally": our geographic splits are by present-day countries, and it's pretty clear that Hong Kong and Macau locations would ordinarily be in, or be sub-cats of, china-geo-stub. Taiwan I ain't saying nuthin' 'bout... Alai 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, with all due respect, you were at least partly responsible for that (if you recall our discussions at the beginning of the year). Theoretically the HK & Macau ones should be in there, but there aren't enough Macao ones for a separate category (10 at last count), and they'd get drowned out in the mass of Mainland stubs. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I don't think the sudden appearance of 39 redlinks to the proposed template are exactly helpful to this deliberation process. Rather jumping the gun, aren't we? Alai 16:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for tagging the articles before the proposal is approved here. I believe the number is pretty close to 50 or 60, and therefore I was using the special:whatlinkshere tool to do the count. There are definitely more than 39 existing Macao-related stubs. When the mainland China-Taiwan split was done earlier this year, there was no Macao-related geography stub, so the problem was not surfaced. I guess these Macao-related geography stubs can be tagged with {{Macao-stub}} and {{Asia-geo-stub}}, like Gibraltar do with {{Gib-stub}} and {{Euro-geo-stub}} (and not {{BritOT-geo-stub}}).

    As for the spelling, both spellings would do, but since both are commonly used in English (in fact -o is preferred by its government), it would be best one is a redirect to another. — Instantnood 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As is explained on WP:SFD, BritOT-geo-stub is a bit of a kludge. Once everything else was out of geo-stub and into its separate categories, all that was left were things like British Indian Ocean Territories, Tristan da Cunha and the Falklands. In fact, with one exception (which I expanded beyond stub level), everything there was a British colony. If there was a better place for them, it would be great, but for now at least BritOT is the best make-weight. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's at least 60 (and a count would be nice, rather than 39 sometimes-marginal candidates, and the assertion there's more), then create it as {{Macau-stub}}, with Macao as a redirect, not v.v. [Macau]] is the spelling in the article, the category, and pretty generally in WP. And wins 3:1 in googlefight. Alai 17:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The googlefight may not accurately reflect the truth: Macau is the only spelling in Portuguese (after a spelling reform) and some other languages, while in many others like English both are used. Portuguese is one of the two official languages of Macao. While using Macau in Portuguese, the Macanese government prefers using Macao in English. — Instantnood 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Searching for both terms in English pages only, makes the ratio more than 4:1 (in the same direction). The Macanese government's preference isn't reflected elsewhere in Wikipedia, doing so here would be highly anomalous. Alai 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out that Instantnood, despite opposition here, has decided to create {{Macao-stub}}, {{Macau-stub}}, and Category:Macao stubs moments ago. I too oppose the creation of this entire family of stubs over disagreements of the appriopriate naming for Macau. Is instantnood using these stubs to promote terms he prefers?--Huaiwei 09:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Poland-hist-stub}}

[edit]

There are quite a few articles that currently have both the template:Poland-stub and template:history-stub (or related) and could be replaced with this more specialized template. Few examples: Drzymała's van, Free City of Kraków, Golden Liberty, Mickiewicz's Legion, Positivism in Poland, Polnische Wehrmacht, Polish United Workers' Party, Provisional Polish Revolutionary Committee, Regency Council and many others. It may be also wise to do this for many other countries: {{Germany-hist-stub}}, {{France-hist-stub}}, {{Russia-hist-stub}}, {{Spain-hist-stub}}, {{Italy-hist-stub}} and others woudl surely yeld many hits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish history stub seems like a good idea, it would give more clear version of the article. Connecting events with history of other nations shouldn't be a problem. --Molobo 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the problem of defining Germany pre-1806 and with the Nazi Germany articles already split off into a separate stub type, {{Germany-hist-stub}}'s a bit more problematic, but probably viable. Caerwine 02:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel-stub (created as {{hotel-corp-stub}})

[edit]

The wording of {{leisure-corp-stub}} is imo a bit clumsy: "This article about an entertainment-related, leisure-related, sports-related or tourism-related corporation, or about a hotel or a chain of hotels, is a stub. ..." I would like to take hotels, hotel chains and resorts out of the equation and give them their own stub template: {{hotel-stub}}. There are currently 62 stubs about hotels in Category:Leisure corporation stubs. Aecis 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Hotel-corp-stub and you've got a deal. To me, hotel-stub would mean the building, like church-stub and stadium-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But what I just thought about: hotel-stub could also refer to the hotelling business as a whole. That might trim down econ-stub and business-stub as well, and expand the "Hotel [corporation] stubs" category. The problem is that I don't know if there are any such stubs. So I think I'll stick with hotel-corp-stub. Aecis 10:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Still don't like the hotel-stub name, though, but with the expanded category it probably needs a slightly different name to the -corp-stub standard. Any ideas? Grutness...wha? 12:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since that segment gets called the lodging industry (at least here in the States it does) how about a {{lodging-corp-stub}}? Caerwine 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's a US only term - here if you said "lodging industry" I'd think you were talking about real estate. Hotels and the like are the "hospitality industry" here. Hotel-corp-stub still sounds a reasonable choice to me. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game stubs

[edit]

I'd like to propose {{anime-cvg-stub}} as a blanket stub for anime games. There are many stubbed games articles relating to either the genres mentioned in the anime game article or those based on an anime/manga property. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I'd like to make a {{cvg-culture-stub}}, it could cover gaming terms, magazines and events. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Director stubs

[edit]

We currently have a fair number of stubs in the {{tv-bio-stub}} and {{theat-stub}} for people who direct acting productions and a poorly named stub, {{film director-stub}}, for those who are notable just for film directing. I'm proposing that we:

  1. Create a new stub, {{director-stub}} for those who are notable for have directed in more than one of film, theatre, or television. I realize that there are other types of of directors than those of thespians, but this should be unambiguous enough, especially in conjunction with its sub types.
  2. Rename {{film director-stub}} as {{film-director-stub}} (This will require an sfd-t, but I'd like to get things squared away as far as how we'll organize the directors before starting that.)
  3. Create a new stub, {{theat-director-stub}} for directors of theatrical plays.
  4. Create a new stub, {{tv-director-stub}} for directors of televison episodes.

I can see not wishing to bother with {{tv-director-stub}} since in the post-1945 era there is considerable overlap with other types of directors, but the other three are nice solid proposals in my opinion. Caerwine 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


London-struct-stub

[edit]

Two months ago, Grutness more or less proposed {{London-struct-stub}}. Nothing was done with this however. So I would like to repropose this template. According to a google search, there are about 170 stub articles about buildings and structures in London in {{UK-struct-stub}}. Aecis 20:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well spotted - a Scotland-struct-stub mght also be worthwhile, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what about NYC-struct-stub (approx. 100 articles)? Aecis 16:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of NYC-stub, I could go with that.--Pharos 10:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{London-struct-stub}}, {{Scotland-struct-stub}}, and {{NYC-struct-stub}} all created. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive12&oldid=1111710727"