Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2015/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Proposals, October 2015
{{Iowa-geo-stub}} / Category:Iowa geography stubs split
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.
This category has one populated sub-cat (Category:Iowa Registered Historic Place stubs) with 400+ articles; the parent category has 1,364 articles. I propose we create templates for counties per List of counties in Iowa, with categories where appropriate and upmerged templates otherwise. Pegship (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly, although given there are 99 counties and 1200 articles, that's an average of 13~ per county -- nowhere near enough to warrant individual categories in the majority of cases. As such it's unlikely to actually diffuse the category very well. Longer term I think it would be best to split them up by region a la Category:California geography stubs, as I've come to conclude wrt Minnesota below...! The metro areas are probably the obvious place to start (if for no other reason than they tend to have more articles, and by extension more stubs, than rural areas), but beyond that I don't really know. Perhaps worth getting some input from WP:IOWA? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Will alert WP:IOWA and look at regional divisions. Thanks! Pegship (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Minnesota-geo-stub}} split
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create upmerged stubs, and regional cats if possible.
Very large stub cat at the moment. I just finished populating all the upmerged stubs and there's still 1,255 sitting in there (although now only 250~ of them use the generic, parent stub). There is now one which can be speedily given its own category: {{CookCountyMN-geo-stub}}, which has 68 transclusions and so is eligible under S1. None of the others are, however, but I still think we need some to be given their own subcats, at least. There were a few more with 40+, but most sit in the region of 20~ transclusions. Is that enough to warrant their own subcat?
Now, there are already two subcats based on regions (the Twin Cities metropolitan area and the Arrowhead region) into which several counties are sorted, which would be a useful model to follow, but I'm not really seeing many other suitable ones to use as they aren't defined on county lines. Would having 62 subcats of the main area suffice?
There are also seven counties without any stubs at all: the counties of Dodge, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Nobles, Stevens, Traverse, Waseca. While some won't be particularly well populated I still think having them upmerged into {{Minnesota-geo-stub}} would help for futureproofing. (And though I don't have specific numbers, there were plenty for Morrison and a fair few for Mille Lacs & Waseca, which would mean the tags were more densely populated than some of the existing upmerged ones...!) Any input on how to proceed (other than the obvious speedy candidate) would be most welcome. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, been 5 days without objection, so I created the upmerged ones and the speedy eligible one, but I think the best model to follow is that for Category:California geography stubs -- well-defined regions given their own category, which then have the upmerged templates feeding into them. As such I'll ask someone from WP:MINNESOTA if they could offer any advice as to how best we can sort out regional groupings... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like a fine idea. I wish I could say there was a simple and generally agreed upon way to divide Minnesota up into regions but, sadly, there isn't any that I'm aware of. If you wanted to just be bold about it, this map through the Minnesota Department of Health meshes with my conception of it and also seems to fit some of the regions noted over in Geography of Minnesota. Nsteffel (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Having just run through some of that category to do some WikiProject tagging, another idea that came to mind would be splitting it out thematically. It looks like most of the stubs are either lakes, rivers/streams or populated places. Perhaps dividing it up along those sorts of criteria would be a little more cut-and-dried and still get things down to more manageable sizes? Nsteffel (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- IMHO we should stick to using regions, however defined, as that's the way the rest of the US geo stubs are sorted. The trick, as you say, is finding out what the regions are according to reliable sources. Just saying. Pegship (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Aussie Rules competition stubs
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation 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 create.
There's a pretty big intersection of Category:Sports event stubs and Category:Australian rules football stubs. The second of those makes plain that there are loads; the wmflabs tool says 104 applicable stubs at this point in time. I believe {{AFL-competition-stub}} would fit our naming scheme? (Haven't dealt with stubsorting for yeaaars so bear with me if I'm mistaken :)) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, 5 days, no objections, can't imagine it being too controversial, and meets the population minimum, so I went ahead and made it. (Hopefully no error, don't think I've ever done this before...) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Linking for administrative purposes: stub at {{AFL-competition-stub}} and cat at Category:Australian rules football competition stubs. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)