Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/July

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Discoveries

Newly discovered, July 2007

edit

Category:Massachusetts government stubs

edit

Very small; upmerger to the proposed state government stubs would seem logical. Alai 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same one listed on this page waaay back in December? If it is, it's had well and truly long enough to get to threshold... Grutness...wha? 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same one (didn't notice that because I only checked whatlinks to the cat, not the template...). Alai 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Omed-stub}}

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was renamed and kept

Probably a fairly useful upmerged template, but oh the name! If - like me - you haven't a clue what an omed is, this is for osteopathic medicine. Probably a keeper, but with a new name (Osteopathy-stub would be good). Grutness...wha? 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for educating me a bit on how this process works. One thing to initiate the discussion, osteopathy does not equal osteopathic medicine.OsteopathicFreak 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{Osteo-med-stub}}, then? Would that cover it better? As I said, as an upmerged stub type it sounds quite a reasonable split, so the main thing (at least IMHO) is changing the current unintuitive name. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Osteo-med-stub}} sounds great to me! Can I go ahead and edit the template and start using that? Or is there a process I should wait for first? OsteopathicFreak 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait a couple of days - just in case someone objects or comes up with a better idea. I must admit I don't know the hierarchy of med stubs that well, it could be that osteopathic medicine is better covered by an existing stub. if no-one objects, though, go ahead and move it (note also that WP:WSS practice is that the older, non-convention-compliant name will be deleted rather than used as a redirect once it's been orphaned). Grutness...wha? 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Various R&B/Soul stub types

edit

Seems that User:Eduemoni has been busy in the last 24 hours, unfortunately. We have a crop of new stubs for R&B and soul music, and there seem to be some inexplicable changes to some long-standing stub types, too. The new types are:

There also seem to have been some changes at {cl|R&B song stubs}} and {cl|R&B album stubs}} which need attention.

The problems? Well, all of these categories are recursive, feeding into themselves. Two of the new stub types concatenate two completely different styles of music, styles which have started to be split separately (hence the earlier R&B song and album stub types). One of the categories goes against convention by using the term "group" rather than b"band", another has questionable capitalisation. In the case of Category:Rhythm and blues stubs, I've no objection to the category, but as a parent only - the template seems redundant, since the vast majority (if not all) of stubs relating to this form of music will be in one of the subcategories. Oh, and on a related topic, I note that the song stub type uses the older form of name ("RnB", and probably needs changing. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those various R&B/Soul stub templates

edit

Were made to fit the scoupe of the by-then revived Wikiproject R&B and Soul Music, I didn't changed other templates that already pointed to Soul music, like the {{RnB-song-stub}}. And, why didn't the cat Hip hop group stubs took this convention? Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry, I got the convention the wrong way round. But the problems remain with these templates and categories - the double scope of two associated but distinct musical styles is impractical, the reason for having a parent template at R&B-stub is still a mystery, and the capitalisation of the bio-stub category is incorrect. And also, having a WikiProject doesn't automatically mean that it is useful to have a stub type for use across Wikipedia. having a WikiProject-specific banner template is far more practical in most cases. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These musical styles aren't distinct at all, they have such a connection, even harder to detect than the one between hip hop and R&B. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting thought, but not one supported by Rhythm and blues, Contemporary R&B or Soul music, each of which gives a quite clear distinction. Soul music could best be described as a subgenre of R&B - as clearly noted in the permanent category hierarchy, which puts Category:Soul music as a subcat of Category:Rhythm and blues music genres. All of which suggests that having the word "soul" as part of these stub templates and categories is redundant, since soul is rgarded as a specific form of R&B. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems accurate to me. It would be harmless to include "soul" in the scoping text, if really necessary, but these names and scopes are a mess. I suggest renaming to RnB/R&B (finessing distinction with redirects), upmerging where there's a lack of population, and deleting where this duplicates an existing type. Alai 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{HongKong-album-stub}} / Category:Hong Kong album stubs

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

New and unproposed. Currently has 24 stubs, but the size of the permcat parent (78 articles in total) makes it look as if it's unlikely to get to the required 60-stub threshold any time soon. Looks like a text-book upmerge candidate... Grutness...wha? 09:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a little time to populate the stub category, it'll have at least 60 stubs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category has now been populated with 92 articles at the time of this comment. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's almost certainly OK. I've given it the other required parent categories. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we generally split by genre and release decade, rather than by country of origin, the main exception being Japan. Is Hong Kong a sufficiently distinct market to be another such exceptional case? Alai 15:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. The music produced there is consumed all over the Greater China Area, as well as by Overseas Chinese all over the world. One thing that makes the HK music industry unique is that it is (to the best of my knowledge) the only industry that produces Cantonese-language music. One of the motivations for me tagging these articles specifically as "Hong Kong album stubs" is for us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong to find which articles need development, and most of the articles on albums produced in Hong Kong so far seem to be either stubs or otherwise need expansion. Also there is talk over at WikiProject China about possibly starting a new taskforce specifically for Chinese music[1], so I think this stub template and the associated category are definitely helpful. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the rationale is largely WPJ-driven, a talk page "stub class article" category might be the better solution. If the marketplace is "Greater China", wouldn't something along the lines of "Chinese albums stubs" (scoped either geographically or linguistically) be a more generally useful type? It's not terrible, but it's cross-cat enough that prior discussion would have been a sensible step (which it is in general, come to that). Alai 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I didn't mean to convey that it was some WikiProject-based initiative to create stub these articles, but I mentioned the Hong Kong WikiProject because it's a group of editors interested in editing HK-related topics. What I should have said was that my motivation was for editors interested in editing Hong Kong-related topics to know that they are HK-album stubs - it wasn't just for the benefit of those who specifically joined the Hong Kong WikiProject. The Hong Kong stubs category is badly in need of sub-categorising as it is, and I didn't want to just throw a whole bunch of articles into that category when they clearly form their own subset. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{biotech-stub}} / Category:Biotechnology stubs

edit

Created in April 2006, 47 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit

Created with the edit summary "Well, we have wine stubs and beer stubs, so why not?". The main reason is, of course, size - there are hundreds of beer and wine stubs, but I can find little evidence looking through Category:Drink stubs of the required 60 stubs on whisky - even if you include whiskey (another problem, sinc this category presumably is intended to cover Irish and Bourbon as well as Scotch). An upmerged template is probably a reasonable idea, but unless its populatable from existing stubs, I don't see any call for a separate category. Perhaps it would be worth splitting out the spirits in general, though... Grutness...wha? 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{CBC-stub}} / Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stubs

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed discovery today. It has 50 stubs, which is almost up to the threshold, but we rarely split mass media stubs by company (and have deleted several similar ones in the past, such as ABC-stub and NBC-stub), since it crosses the hierarchy, including TV and radio stations and programmes. May need watching, at the evry leasy, but it's likely to be less than helpful overall. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Mexico-university-stub }} / Category:Mexican university stubs

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerged to university stubs & Mexico stubs

Unproposed, and no real sign of it reaching threshold any time soon. No objection to an upmerged template, but it's fill or delete as far as the category goes. And if it stays, it will need to be formatted! Grutness...wha? 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! It didn't even occur to me when I was going through the WP:UNI page today that my edit was creating a new stub (though I suppose it should have, duh). It was redlinked in a list of other stubs, so I just opened it up, copied and pasted from another stub, and saved it. You guys do whatever you need to with it. I don't have any feelings one way or the other. :) Esrever 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a related topic: Category:Mexico education stubs seems to be very small and shouldn't it have been "Mexican ..." ? Valentinian T / C 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Vojvodina-politician-stub}}

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected to Serbia-politician-stub

Unproposed, and hardly necessary since there are only 75 stubs on Serbian politicians overall. Mostly harmless, I suppose, since it's upmerged - although if it sets a precedent for splitting Serbian politicians by region it may prove messy further south... Grutness...wha? 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting by national subdivision is not my favourite cup of tea, although the U.K. material is indeed split this way. I'm moderately negative towards this one, but I don't think it'll cause any actual harm. We should avoid templates for Kosovo until the situation there clears up. Leaving the political / NPOV issue aside, the Kosovo material is far below the size threshold. Valentinian T / C 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody! Sorry but I didn't know that I should propose the creation of a new stub. I have made this stub to avoid ambiguity. In Eastern Europe national identity is usualy equal to ethnical identity. Because of that if someone said that someone is a Serbian-Hungarian person people in Serbia would think that his or her father is an ethnic Serb and his or her mother is an ethnic Hungarian person. And to say that someone is a Serbian-Croatian or a Croatian-Serbian is more risky than to say Vojvodina-Serbian or Vojvodina-Croatian. So I thought that would be a good idea to put these people into two stub-cathegories. One should refer to the region where they live and another should refer to the ethnicity (or nationality) of the person. About Kosovo: Don't you find ridiculous that all politicians from Kosovo is categegorised as European politicians? This is I think the total political paralysis. Most of them are ethnic Albanians from Serbia. The best solution of this problem would be a Kosovo politician stub. AND MY FINAL PRO ARGUMENT: IF THERE ARE NON-STUB VOJVODINA AND KOSOVO POLITICIAN CATHEGORIES WHY DO YOU FIND MAKING STUB ONES A BAD IDEA?--HunTheGoaT 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to take your three points separately - first, as far as stub categories are concerned, national and regional boundaries is all: we don't divide people by ethnicity. A "Serbian politician" is one who is a politician within Serbia or who was born in Serbia. The same thing applies to other biography stub subtypes, too. As such - to answer your second comment - Kosovan politicians, since they are politicians within part of Serbia - should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub. That they are not is due to edit-warring on those articles - the only solution which all sides could afgree on was that these politicians were European. technically, they should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub, but if anyone was to change the template on the articles, I would guarantee that other editors would change it straight back. This brings use to the third point. Permanent categories are added to articles by literally adding the category. Stubs are added by template. As we have found in the past, some stub templates are susceptible to edit wars, and edit wars on templates have far wider ramifications than edit wars on articles, as they can affect large numbers of articles at any one time. We used to have a simple Kosovo-stub, and it caused an immense amount of problems due to edit wars. For that reason, we don't have stub templates relating to either countries that are not internationally recognised or regions of countries where those regions are undergoing likely constitutional change. If and when a permanent agreement is reached on the future of Kosovo, either as part of Serbia or independent from it, Kosovo stub types will be a reasonable idea. Until then, though, they would be edit-war targets. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Icehockey-league-stub}} / Category:Ice hockey league stubs

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, newly created... currently has one stub. There might be another 59 to reach threshold, but if not an upmerge is probably in order. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a bit of a newbie, I was unaware that there was a procedure for proposing one. It seems a bit 'unanarchistic' to have one. Nevertheless, excuse the mistake. There is a stub for every other kind of ice hockey related topic, except for league, so I assumed it was a bit of an oversight and added one. I would never expect it to be a stub with a lot in it, but it would be useful for catching the new league artices. Alaney2k 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alaney2k - there are good reasons why there is a specific proposal process for stubs - it's a bit long-winded to go into here (though a search of the site should find them). To cut a long story short, having an upper and lower limit on the size of stub categories makes it easier for stub sorters to sort stubs easily and also helps editors to find articles on specific topics without being swamped with thousands of articles or having to pick through dozens of nearly empty categories. In the case of this stub type, though, it's possible that there are enough stubs to warrant a separate stub category (60 is the standard threshold in these sorts of cases, hence my comments earlier). Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Some concerns on the recent video game upsurge

edit

Forgive me if I'm wrong (and apologies to JohnnyMrNinja if I am), but I'm getting a little concerned. There was recently a proposal for about a dozen new templates for different makes of video game, which was approved... but it looks like JohnnyMrNinja has been creating considerably more templates than that. As I said, I could be mistaken, but if not, there are quite a few new discoveries here... Grutness...wha? 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/July&oldid=1149873243"