Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive13

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals

October 2005

edit

Germany noble stub

edit

This would be very handy for the 96 relevant stubs in {{Germany-bio-stub}} and the 200+ waiting to be reassigned in {{Noble-stub}} and subdivisions, on the same basis as the equivalents for UK, France and Poland.Staffelde 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I just finished moving Polish nobles from Euro-noble-stub to Poland-noble-stub :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Okay - who pushed that lump of plutonium into the noble-stub category? Looks like it's gone critical in the last couple of days! Grutness...wha? 12:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The category has now 576 articles. Would it be best to move some of these articles that are related to history to a new {{China-hist-stub}}? — Instantnood 15:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Between {{Asia-hist-stub}}, {{battle-stub}}, and {{China-stub}}, it shouldn't be a problem to find more than 60 stubs for a {{China-hist-stub}}. I did manage to trim {{China-stub}} just now by sending about 20 stubs to {{China-bio-stub}} where they belonged instead, and there should be others that can similarly profit form such a restubbing.
And perhaps some to {{Asia-myth-stub}} too. — Instantnood 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well those stubs should be double stubbed as {{China-stub}} and {{Asia-myth-stub}} until such time as we have enough to justify a {{China-myth-stub}}. Caerwine 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poland geo-stub split

edit

{{Poland-geo-stub}} has over 800 entries. I think we need to create {{Poland-struct-stub}} and some administrative divisions (by Polish voivodships, perhaps?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voivodships stub seems a good proposal, although a smaller stub with regions of Poland could be named in cases of natural landmarks or such perhaps ? --Molobo 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the discussion about splitting India-geo-stub, and earlier discussions about France and Germany geo-stub splitting. In essence, split off any voivodships that meet the criteria - typically 80 for each geo-stub, though something borderline would probably be accepted. (Note: some editors set the mark at 75, others at 60.) Mindmatrix 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for Poland-struct-stub, there are under 10 Polish structures listed in Euro-struct-stub, so that one's a non-starter. I'm not sure what Molobo means by "In cases of natural landmarks", but if he's talking about mountain-stubs and lake-stubs, then - as always - that would also be no. Splitting by Voivodship sounds like a good idea (how many are there in Poland?) If so, the usual ideas apply - do a tally up, and the largest would be the most natural to split off (as Mindmatrix says, see the discussions above re:Germany, France, and Japan). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Poland-struct-stubs, there may be very few in the Euro-struct-stub, but there are many more spread through other struct-stub, like university-stub or statium-stubs. Also, I estimate they are at least 50 relevant stubs in Poland-geo-stub (which may overlap with existing struct-stubs somewhat due to double stubbing) - in my brief analysis of first stub page (stubs from A to J) I found had 15 struct-stubs. As for voivodship-specific stubs, I don't have time to do a count - perhaps somebody from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland will help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking I don't see a need to further disambiguate stub templates. After all they are but a message that there's work to do. And the hint should be that the work to do is on the article, not on the stub message. After all what we should focus on is to limit the number of stubs, not number of stub messages in certain category. Halibutt 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps an extreme example will expain why it's necessary. Delaware currently has four geography stubs. We don't have a Category:Delaware geography stubs, because as soon as it was created, any diligent editor would fix the four stubs leaving an empty category. Which might well be speedily deleted as deprecated 24 hours later. Then another Delaware geo-stub is found. So the category is recreated. That's fixed by the same editor, so the category is then speedied, then... Since this wouldAlso, it would mean that instead of having a very large but workable number of stub categories (around 500), we would have many, many times that many. Imagine what would happen if every country had a geo-stub a bio-stub, a hist-stub, a struct-stub, a bcast-stub, a rail-stub, a politician-stub, a party and a general purpose country-stub. Ten times 200+ countries - that's over 2000 stub types before we even get onto things like the sciences! Stub sorting would become virtually impossible, and would be many times the amount of work it currently is (and that's already too much). For that reason, we set a lower limit of around 60 stubs for a new category to be created. On the other hand, editors could easily be overwhelmed trying to find articles to work on in categories that are big and of too wide a scope, so we like to have an upper limit on category size (preferably around 1000 stubs). Currently there are nowhere near enough Poland building and structure stubs for a separate category, but splitting Poland-geo-stub into separate Voivodships might well be useful. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-geo-stub

edit

The Illinois-geo-stub category has over 100 entries in it now, more than half or which are in Chicago. Would be easier to get Chicago folks to contribute if the stubs were more specific. Tedernst 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over 100? Sir, that's a tiny category! Seriously, we don't usually look to start splitting these things until there are 300 or so stubs. There is a {{Chicago-stub}}, though, so it would make plenty of sense to double-stub those items with both Illinois-geo-stub and Chicago-stub. That way, any Chicago editors who don't want to have to pick and choose among the 40-50 non-Chicago Illinois-geo-stubs can do so. Mind you, Chicago editors are probably more likely to know about places elsewhere in that state than the majority of other Wikipedians... Grutness...wha? 23:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness about double-stubbing with {{Chicago-stub}}. The drawback, of course, is that there's no category that finds articles that are double-stubbed in this way. And to provide some perspective, the province of Ontario has about 1000 stubs right now, and it isn't going to be split anytime soon.I can see why you'd find the split useful, but I don't think it's necessary yet. Mindmatrix 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't get what a "big number" was. Sorry about that. I've done what you've suggested and double-stubbed with Chicago stub. Thanks! Tedernst 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba-geo-stub

edit

There are currently 353 articles in {{Caribbean-geo-stub}}. A google search suggests that about 60 to 70 of these are for Cuban geography stubs, so I would like to propose {{Cuba-geo-stub}}. Aecis 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last week there were 42. Have a look at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying. Cuba is nowhere near the top of the list. If any were to be split off, Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic would be before Cuba. In any case, 353 is not as big as some other categories - no need to create this one yet, and I'll be tallying the category up again in a couple of weeks time, so if it has grown since last week, we'll know for certain then. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness on this one. Mindmatrix 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 42? Then I withdraw the proposal immediately. But I'm still baffled. How is it possible that a (from my point of view) large country like Cuba has only 42 geography stubs? That is less than half of the Faroe Islands! Aecis 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Size of country and number of stubs don't fully correlate (otherwise we'd be swamped in Russian, Indian, and Mainland China stubs, to start with). In the case of Cuba vs the Faaroes, Scandinavia as a whole always ranks very high in web access, and Cuba much less so. Remember too that Cuba is still politically somewhat isolated, and that might make for smaller numbers of Cuban editors on the English Wikipedia. Then again, perhaps there are lots of Cuban articles which have been expanded beyond stub size. Or lots of Cuba geography stubs not marked as such (there is a Category:Cuba stubs - I'll check that for geo-stubs, but there are only about 40 stubs in total in that, so that probably won't take Cuba up to threshold). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(update) There were a hanbdful more in Category:Cuba stubs, but there'd still be only about 50 in all. It is growing, slowly, though, so a Cuba-geo-stub's not impossible in the next few months. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Size of country and number of stubs indeed don't fully correlate, but I would expect there would be so many Cuban geographical features to write about, that even if a large percentage of them wouldn't have an article, there still would be more than enough for a separate stub template/category. Cuba indeed doesn't rank very high in web access, but "mainland Cuba" (the Cuban community in Florida) probably does. But I don't know how they are represented on Wikipedia. Aecis 09:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gum Stub

edit

There should be a stub for gum, I know all the Dentenye's are stubbed and I'm too lazy to find the others (I know I seen them)--FlareNUKE 06:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

over 60 gum stubs? Are you sure? I don't think I've ever seen one! Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully any existing stubs for gums are in the Category:Food & drink stubs. While I would be skeptical that there are 60 stubs, I wouldn't be surprised to some there. Caerwine 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Russian-hist-stub

edit

{{Russian-hist-stub}} should be renamed to {{Russia-hist-stub}}, according to the stub naming conventions, shouldn't it? Note that Russian-hist-stub redirects to {{Russian-history-stub}} - I think they should both be redirected to Russia-hist-stub. At the very least, I think one redirect is in order to make Russia-hist-stub workable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. Ill make the redirect but go to WP:SFD and follow the instructions at the top of the page becuase the old names arent good ones so could be deleted BL kiss the lizard 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stubs

edit

The Radio stubs are currently a slight bit of a mess, so I'm proposing a bot of a reorganization. This has some parts that will need to go through SfD, but the form in which the SfD is proposed will depend upon how this proposal is resolved.

We currently have:

I suggest we do the following:

  1. Create a new stub {{radio-show-stub}} & Category:Radio show stubs.
  2. Adopt the {{radio-station-stub}} template and give it a new category Category:Radio station stubs.
  3. Do an SfD on Category:Radio programme stubs and replace it with a Category:Radio stubs as the category that {{radio-stub}} feeds into.
  4. Do an SfD on {{AM-stub}} and {{AM-stub}} to simply delete them.

The reason I have for proceeding as I suggest is two fold.

  1. It avoids the program/programme problem.
  2. it makes it easier for us to be sure we've done all the necessary null edits.

Category:EastEnders stubs

edit

I hereby propose Category:EastEnders stubs and Template:EastEndersStub --4836.03 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • a bit late since it's already been created, had its category name changed, been discovered by us and added to the discoveries page, been discussed there for several days, had the template's name changed as per our naming guidelines, had all its articles re-stubbed to the new name, and had the old name proposed for deletion. Proposal of new stubs is meant to occur a week before the creation of the stub type. At this stage it's more a case of watching it to see how much it gets used. if it's heavily used, or if there's a dedicated WikiProject, then it's less likely to be proposed for deletion. So... is there a WikiProject, and are there over 60 stubs on EastEnders? Grutness...wha? 07:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock stub

edit

I don't seem to be able to find any stubs catagorys for rocks-are they just under a more scientific name? If they are, I suggust a stub with a more simple name, such as Template:Rock-Stub--Akako|☎ 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the music genre or "large pebbles"? Aecis 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the plural's being used, I suspect Akako is looking for mineral-stub Grutness...wha? 05:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we do have some articles about "rock formations", great notable boulders. I don't think those deserve a stub, though.--Pharos 21:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those ones would be geo-stubs, anyway. So it's {{geo-stub}} for rock formations, and {{mineral-stub}} for types of rock. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that {{geo-stub}} is about geography, while rock formations fall under geology. Aecis 10:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. There is {{geology-stub}}, but any rock formation big enough for a wikipedia article is almost certainly regardable as a geographic feature (e.g., Ayers Rock) Grutness...wha? 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More England-geo-stub splittage

edit

Just did a tally, and got 

    25 Isle of Wight
    30 Bristol
    38 Herefordshire
    52 Bedfordshire
    52 Tyne and Wear
    62 Worcestershire
    65 Rutland
    66 Oxfordshire
    73 Warwickshire
    81 Hertfordshire
    89 Cheshire
   105 Suffolk

This makes Template:Cheshire-geo-stub and Template:Suffolk-geo-stub clear candidates. Some of these are unlikely to ever be worth splitting out though - Isle of Wight and Bristol. Rutland looks big here, but that's because it has pretty much 100% coverage now. What do we go once England-geo-stub is just cluttered by a handful of these tiny counties? Morwen - Talk 18:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could have saved you some work here, because I did first thing this morning (given that I'd just finished Scotland, it seemed logical). And the figures I got were slightly different. Also, we've been splitting at 75 for English counties - which, according to my figures puts Suffolk (92), Cheshire (89), Hertfordshire (81) and Warwickshire (75) at or over threshold, so I'd go for those four. As to where do we go, most of the others are filling up rapidly (there were some 102 new stubs created for these counties in the last two weeks). Bristol is likely to be the only problem, and it might well be posible to merge that one into either Gloucestershire or Somerset. the previous count and is now up to 25 - and still has plenty of stubs that can be made. Tyne and wear was like that until recently, and is now well up the list. I'd definitely support {{Suffolk-geo-stub}}, {{Cheshire-geo-stub}}, {{Hertfordshire-geo-stub}} and {{Warwickshire-geo-stub}} for now (especially since one of them is my birth county :) Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've loaded up the geo lists with what needs to be moved where. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah to hell with it - I relent. If anyone wants to split off some of the others, I'll add details of Oxford, Rutland, and Worcester to the page as well. That will give people something more to do if they feel like it :) All three of them are now over 65 stubs anyway (68, 69, and 67 respectively). Grutness...wha? 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


So what do you all think? Caerwine 19:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good idea. I have only one problem, but perhaps it's just me. When I see {{radio-show-stub}}, I immediately think of entertainment broadcastings. According to Princeton University's WordNet 2.1, a show is "a social event involving a public performance or entertainment." For me, this excludes talk shows and radio documentaries. Perhaps a native anglophone could tell me a bit more about this? Aecis 10:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is a talk show not a show? More generally, at least in the States, when in comes to tv and radio, show and program are simply synonyms. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
7.a. A radio or television program.

Program does have the advantage of being less ambiguous when the words tv or radio aren't stuck in front, but that isn't a problem in this case. Caerwine 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wales-bio-stub

edit

I would like to propose {{Wales-bio-stub}} and Category:Welsh people stubs). I have done a head count of 60+ articles, which can be found on my talk page: Proposal for Welsh bio stub. There are plenty more at Category:Welsh people by occupation in the individual subcategories. I have tried to find more Welsh people, to move from the much overburdened "British bio stub" section, but in many cases, there simply is not enough information in them/or I have been unable to read the hundreds of individual articles one by one. --MacRusgail 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. Splitting by occupation (or other cause of notability) is probably ultimately the way to get the parent category down in size, but double-stubbing on both axes is perfectly reasonable, too. BTW, can we review the "no more than two stub-tags" policy? It's becoming both increasingly unworkable, and more honoured-in-the-breach. I seem to recall it was even in the first instance more popular with policy-drafters than actual stub-sorters... Alai 22:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a good point about the two stub policy. What happens if someone is a polymath AND comes from some small country/region such as Wales that is unlikely to have the likes of say, "Welsh-botanist-stub", but which is substantial enough to have bio-stubs (IMHO)? Our hypothetical person could be a botanist, hymn writer (i.e. musician and poet), actor and Welsh to boot. --MacRusgail 16:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japan-seiyu-stub Japan-voice-actor-stub

edit

I started going through {{Japan-bio-stub}} to move some of them into the subcats, and about half-way through the A's, I noticed that of the 15 or so that I had changed, a good 80% were for Seiyu, or voice actors. I'd like to propose {{Japan-seiyu-stub}} under {{Japan-actor-stub}}. There are about 360 articles in Category:Japanese voice actors, and if I had to guess, most of them would still be at stub level. Neier 23:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... though would Japan-voiceactor-stub be better, given the name of the parent category? Grutness...wha? 23:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely must be at Japan-voice-actor-stub, or some variant, given the perm category name, and the name of the "third parent", the stub type, {{voice-actor-stub}}. Common English names, and what not. Alai 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'll go with Japan-voice-actor-stub in accordance with the third parent that Alai pointed out. Neier 03:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedians by Nationality

edit

I've just made an American comedians stub, I'd like to propose that, and maybe British, Australian, Canadain, Japanese, German, French, etc.--Hailey 22:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

More Europe geo stubs needed

edit

After scanning through the Europe geography stubs category it shows we need more stub templates:

  • Andorra-geo-stub
  • luxembourg-geo-stub
  • latvia-gea-stub
  • macedonia-geo-stub
  • liechtenstein-ge-stub (possibly lich-geo-stub)
  • cyprus-geo-stub (possibly divided into two owned parts)
  • gibraltar-geo-stub
  • monaco-geo-stub
  • moldova-geo-stub

There maybe more but most of the stubs buildings up in the Europe geography category are for these countries. - (Erebus555 11:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No, it doesn't show that at all. What it shows is that there are still nine countries in Europe which don't have enough stubs for separate categories. The same can be said for three countries in South America, three in Central America, about two dozen in the Caribbean, 30 or so in Africa, about six in Asia (plus more in Southeast Asia and the Middle East) and about 15 in Oceania. At the last tally, two weeks ago, of the ones you mention only Luxembourg had over 30 stubs, and it only had 34. Since a minimum of 60 stubs are needed for a new category, none of these are yet at the point of being made. What's the point of making a Monaco-geo-stub when there are only three stubs and unlikely ever to be more than that? What's more, Cyprus doesn't have two parts (it has three - about 8% of the island is officially still British), and according to our naming guidelines Liechtenstein wouldn't be abbreviated. Grutness...wha? 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Followup) Apologies if my previous comment sounded harsh - we do keep track of all countries without stubs, though, and regularly count the stubs about once a fortnight. As a matter of fact, someone has made a lot of Luxembourg stubs in the last two weeks, so that has now been proposed. it's quite likely that Cyprus will reach threshold sometime soon, too. Oh, and the only one you forgot was San Marino, BTW. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 2005

edit

{{paleontologist-stub}}; {{ornithologist-stub}}; {{entomologist-stub}}

edit

I counted through the {{zoologist-stub}}s and got the following results:

  • Ornithologists 105 stubs
  • Entomologists 106 stubs
  • Paleontologists 54 stubs

I think the ornithologists and entomologists are pretty obvious splits. I hope you will turn a blind eye to the fact that the paleontologists are just under the 60 stub minimum, because this will get rid of a lot of double stubbing, since they are currently all stubbed as both {{zoologist-stub}} and {{geologist-stub}}. Also, I only counted the ones that were previously marked as {{biologist-stub}}s, which I then re-stubbed them as zoologists; so there could be more paleontologists under {{geologist-stub}}.--Carabinieri 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article the American spelling is paleontology and the British spelling is palaeontology. I support a redirect.--Carabinieri 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So are you all okay with creating the cat, even though 60 stub minimum hasn't been reached?--Carabinieri 09:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Category:Ornithologist stubs

edit

The current Category page for these stubs is titled Category:Ornothologist stubs. This is a clear typo, since it does not even match the template spelling. -- EncycloPetey 08:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. This one can be speedied, so no real need for SFD with it. I'll fix it up. Grutness...wha? 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auto organizations and auto components

edit

Will also add {{auto-org-stub}} and {{comp-auto-stub}} to sort auto-related organizations (not manufacturers), and auto-related components, for example engines, valvetypes etc. Have sorted most of the stubs beginning with a and b, and have at least 10 stubs for both of the abovementioned subcats. Bjelleklang - talk 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{auto-org-stub}} and {{auto-comp-stub}} would be more in line with our existing naming standards, and are a more natural word order. Auto-comp-stub is abit of an ambiguous abbreviation, as there's quite a few other things it could stand for, including company. --Mairi 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{auto-part-stub}} instead of {{auto-comp-stub}}? --Alynna 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{auto-part-stub}} sounds fine for me, the same goes for {{auto-org-stub}}. I'm not very experienced with these kind of things, so I appreciate your input! Bjelleklang - talk 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the automobile company stub is {{auto-corp-stub}} as the corporation stubs actually include all the ways of organizing a company. The abiguity that a {{auto-comp-stub}} might raise is minor, but since I happen to thing {{auto-part-stub}} is the better choice anyway ... Caerwine 06:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects to {{auto-part-stub}} and {{auto-org-stub}} by tuesday 8th., I'll go ahead and create them. Bjelleklang - talk 23:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting scientists by nationality

edit

I would like to propose splitting {{scientist-stub}}s by nationality. This will reduce the size of some nation-stub categories that really need it (US and UK, especially) and reduce some double-stubbing (although not much, since most scientists are marked more specifically, {{biologist-stub}}, eg)). While sorting {{biologist-stub}}s I noticed that the following will definately be viable:

I just wanted to ask your opinion on whether you would support splitting scientists by nationality in principle before counting them. But I think the nations mentioned above will definately have enough stubs.--Carabinieri 12:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objections, having previously propsed a {{Germany-scientist-stub}}, which due to other stuff on my plate and the novelty thereof, I haven't fast-tracked. Caerwine 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symbol stubs + {{anthem-stub}} & Category:Anthem stubs

edit

{{Anthem-stub}} & Category:Anthem stubs have been on the discovery page since August. A recent push by me has brough the number of stubs there from under 10 to over 40. That's still a little light, but my effort was not comprehensive and Category:Anthem stubs can help trim the overlarge (11 pages at present) Category:Song stubs by functioning as a sub category. Along with Category:Flag stubs and the proposed Category:Heraldry stubs, I'd like to put Category:Anthem stubs in a for now templateless Category:Symbol stubs. I'n not certain if there enough stubs to justify a {{symbol-stub}}, but there's enough of a relationship here to justify having them feed into a common category, and we do have other templateless stub categories, so I'm not breaking new ground here. Caerwine 21:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Might be good to note on the category that it intentionally doesn't have a template, so no one feels inclined to "fix" it (which happened to Category:Aviation stubs). --Mairi 03:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austria-hist-stub}} + {{Ireland-hist-stub}}

edit

Neither stub is needed to help split an overlarge category, but they both would get over 60 stubs and help to thin out {{Euro-hist-stub}} so as to make it easier to see if a {{HolyRomanEmpire-stub}} or a {{ByzantineEmpire-stub}} would be viable. Caerwine 22:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Luxembourg-geo-stub}}

edit

Someone's been busy making stub articles on all the municipalities in Luxembourg - which means its gone from 34 stubs two weeks ago to 112 now. This one suddenly looks a lot more viable! Grutness...wha? 11:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mindmatrix 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that! In other words... I support. - (Erebus555 16:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It's all loaded up at my stub-splitting page. If there's no objections I'll start on it shortly. (A bit early, but it's not a controversial one). Grutness...wha? 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sweet siren song of geo-stub sorting beckoned me, and I answered. :-) Mindmatrix 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austro-Hungary}}

edit

If we have an Ottoman Empire stub, what about the Austro-Hungary stub? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, do we have 60 Austro-Hungary stubs? As a state, Austria-Hungary lasted a fairly short period of time and many of its potential stubs can be assigned either to the proposed (and likely to be soon created) {{Austria-hist-stub}} or a possible but not yet ready for proposing {{Hungary-hist-stub}}. In any case, to cover as wide a period of time as would be feasible, I'd prefer {{Habsburg-stub}} & Category:Habsburg Empire stub so that it could cover events before 1867. Caerwine 07:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last of England

edit

Finally, we are in a position to knock England-geo-stub on the head completely. I've been making a few Isle of Wight stubs, and it looks like some other people have been doing the same with some of the other counties. The count for the five remaining un-subcategorised counties is now:

  • Herefordshire 83
  • Bedfordshire 73
  • Isle of Wight 67
  • Tyne & Wear 55
  • Bristol 31

Bristol's pretty thin, but all the others are passable at least, and Herefordshire has finally moved into the respectable category. I'd say we can easily make a {{Herefordshire-geo-stub}}, {{Bedfordshire-geo-stub}}, and {{IsleofWight-geo-stub}} (or maybe {{Wight-geo-stub}}), and it wouldn't be too big a stretch to make the last two, {{TyneandWear-geo-stub}} (or{{TyneWear-geo-stub}}) and {{Bristol-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Think we may as well make the last two too. Tyne&Wear is expanded atm as I was just finishing off all its parishes, and am now hunting for untagged stubs. Morwen - Talk 07:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - the lists are up in the usual place. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done. The numbers are 83, 72, 67, 75, and 31. England-geo-stub is left with six articles, all of which are multi-county. This should be it for England splitting for a while, although at some point it might be worth splitting {{Yorkshire-geo-stub}} (currently about 500). Morwen - Talk 12:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sanmarino-stub}}

edit

I propose to create template/category for San Marino related stubs. There are near 20 such stubs, and I don't know with which stub should I mark them. --Monkbel 12:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those could use {{Euro-stub}} - or {{Euro-geo-stub}} if they're for places. The standard threshold for new stub types is atleast 60 such stubs. --Mairi 19:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll use these. --Monkbel 18:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality stub

edit

This stub will be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirituality. The initial statement of scope for this project is, “This WikiProject aims to promote better coordination, content distribution, balance and cross-referencing among pages covering topics of spirituality, as well as pages on topics that can be compared or contrasted with spirituality.”

When I think about Wikipedia, I notice four fundamental "ways of knowing" strongly expressed here - science, philosophy, religion and spirituality. By strengthening the spirituality-related pages, my hope is that this spirituality project can go a long way to help show how these ways of knowing interrelate with each other, not just emphasize their differences.

The Spirituality portal also is a part of this project. One portal box contains a list of "Things you can do," including work on spirituality-related stubs. By its very nature as indicated in the diagram, many of the spirituality stubs will overlap with other stubs. However, spirituality has a distinct perspective that merits balanced representation to maintain NPOV across this wide range of Wikipedia articles. The use of the spirituality stub will help ensure NPOV early on in the article writing process. — RichardRDFtalk 19:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub types or normally proposed before being created. However, since there's a wikiproject I don't see a problem with the stub. I would've prefered the category be named Category:Spirituality stubs tho. --Mairi 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice this project until I saw the "invisible" comment note in the project template page. By that time, I already had created Template:Spirituality-stub and Category:Spirituality-related stubs, sorry! I only added the template to one article as a test. I used "Category:Spirituality-related stubs" to be analogous with List of Spirituality-related topics and Glossary of spirituality-related terms. Maybe I should have used “Template:Spirituality-related-stub” to be consistent, but I always can change that if this proposal is approved. — RichardRDFtalk 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the analogy should be with the main catagory, so unless thats called Category:Spirituality-related the stub cat shouldnt be Category:Spirituality-related stubs. BL kiss the lizard 23:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, changing the cat to Category:Spirituality stubs is fine with me. — RichardRDFtalk 01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the note about the use of the word "-related" in stub categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines#Foo stubs or Foo-related stubs.3F. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced, Category:Spirituality stubs it is! :-) — RichardRDFtalk 03:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've changed it over. The older Category:Spirituality-related stubs can be speedied once it's been eempty for 24 hours. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{South American history stubs}}

edit

Hello. I am proposing this new subcategory to add to the history stubs. Alternatively, if anyone out there feels like it may not be worth it due to a small number of current candidates, we can change it to {{Latin American history stubs}}, to include history stubs from Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America as well. Regards --Andres C. 22:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that would be {{SouthAm-hist-stub}} btw. BL kiss the lizard 23:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Grutness had already brought it up, but I would like to propose it again: there seem to be more than enough sports-related organizations in Category:Sports stubs to create {{sport-org-stub}} or {{sports-org-stub}} and Category:Sports organization stubs. Aecis praatpaal 22:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singlar please! I'd prefer {{sport-org-stub}} and Category:Sport organization stubs. Caerwine 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Musician stubs

edit

I've started sorting Category:Musician stubs with the three new instrument based stubs. At present it looks like it'll go down from 23 pages to 11 or 12 when I'm done with the sorting. I'd like to go ahead and propose four other stubs.

I don't have an exact count, but I'm confident that all four will have more than 60 stubs. Caerwine 00:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be the {{songwriter-stub}} / {{singer-songwriter-stub}} hierarchy?
That's the idea. Category:Songwriter stubs would also be a child of Category:Writer stubs for writing the words in the songs. Caerwine 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Bruce1ee 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hawaii-geo-stub}}

edit

Propose {{Hawaii-geo-stub}} for use at Western US geography stubs. There are at least 49 articles that are currently tagged with {{US-west-geo-stub}} and an additional four I found in {{Hawaii-stub}}. Also, there are probably quite a few unsorted in {{US-geo-stub}}. Many of these articles currently have both US-west-geo-stub and Hawaii-stub. I am suggesting that this can condense those two stubs into one, as well as help to further categorize the Hawaii geography articles into a better stub than US-west-geo-stub. Let me know if there are any problems with this. --MattWright (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Aina Haina, Hawaii
  2. Akaka Falls State Park
  3. Area code 808
  4. Banzai Pipeline
  5. Bell stone
  6. Camp Smith
  7. Ford Island
  8. Fort Shafter
  9. Foster Botanical Garden
  10. Haiku, Hawaii
  11. Hawaiian islands channels
  12. Hilina Slump
  13. Ho'okipa
  14. Ka Lae
  15. Kaimu, Hawaii
  16. Kaimuki, Hawaii
  17. Kalapana, Hawaii
  18. Kalaupapa, Hawaii
  19. Kalihi
  20. Kamuela, Hawaii
  21. Kaula
  22. Ka'u
  23. Kea'iwa Heiau State Recreation Area
  24. Kipahulu
  25. Kohala, Hawaii
  26. Koke'e State Park
  27. Kula, Hawaii
  28. Lanikai
  29. Manana
  30. Manoa
  31. Maro Reef
  32. Mokolea Rock
  33. Mount Waialeale
  34. Na Mokulua
  35. North Shore (Oahu)
  36. Pacific Missile Range Facility
  37. Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex
  38. Pala'au State Park
  39. Pauoa, Hawaii
  40. Puna, Hawaii
  41. Punaluu Black Sand Beach
  42. Puu Kukui
  43. Tantalus (Oahu)
  44. Waihee, Hawaii
  45. Wailua Falls
  46. Waimea Bay, Hawaii
  47. Waimea Canyon State Park
  48. Waimea River (Hawaii)
  49. West Maui Mountains
  50. Hawaiian islands channels
  51. Molokini
  52. Lava Tree State Monument
  53. Hapuna Beach State Recreation Area
POSTPONE. You missed three of them, according to my list. Anyone who has worked at WP:WSS for a while knows that US states are automatically proposed when they reach 65 stubs and are counted every two weeks or so. Hawaii is getting very close, but all US states will be re-assessed as soon as the current influx from the now defunct State Park-stub is sorted. Hawaii is one of the most likely to get its own stub at that time (along with Maryland, Tennessee and Montana). Grutness...wha? 23:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. I had no idea about that requirement or the automation involved. Just saw an article I was monitoring get retagged from State Park-stub and thought a Hawaii one may be appropriate. I withdraw the proposal. On another note, how will it be handled with the Hawaii-stub? Will a US-west-geo and Hawaii-stub be replaced with a single Hawaii-geo-stub or would it have a Hawaii-geo and a Hawaii stub? Just curious. --MattWright (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's very organised - the two biggest groups of stubs in wikipedia are bio-stubs and geo-stubs, so it hass pretty rigorously worked out. As to what will happen with Hawaii-stub, it will almost certainly remain, since it's not supposed to be for geographical items - its for things like Hawaiian government, culture, history, and the like. Some US state non-geography stub categories have been deleted because they were little-used and had no WikiProject associated with them. That is unlikely to happen in Hawaii's case becaus there is a WikiProject. Category:Hawaii geography stubs would be a subcategory of both Category:Western US geography stubs and Category:Hawaii-related stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(update) Hawaii ended up with 62 stubs, but a quick atlas-hunt and three new stubs from me has brought it up to 65, so I'll "re-propose" it below with the two other states that reached 65 after incorporating all the state park stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even more musician stubs

edit

As I go through the sorting I see two more possibilities that should be able to get over 60 stubs each.

  1. {{electronic-musician-stub}} which would also go along in name form with the recently added {{UK-electronic-band-stub}} in form.
  2. {{plucked-musician-stub}} which would take the banjoists, lute players, harpists, sitar players, mandolinists, etc who play string instruments that would normally be plucked but aren't guitarists. I'd also really like to see a better name, tho it does parralle that of {{bowed-musician-stub}}.

I realise that there is some overlap between {{electronic-musician-stub}} and {{DJ-stub}} on the one hand and between {{electronic-musician-stub}} and {{keyboardist-stub}} on the other hand, but it's sort of a continum there with quite a few of the makers of electronic music not really identifiable as either DJ's or keyboardists. Anyway, I really would appreciate comments here on both of these. Caerwine 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(snigger) Those names need work. I'm a guitarist, but a "plucked musician"? I haven't been plucked in a while... Grutness...wha? 23:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{plucked-string-musician-stub}} or {{string-plucking-musician-stub}} or even {{string-pluckers-stub}} (don't try this one after a few drinks). I agree the {{electronic-musician-stub}} / {{keyboardist-stub}} / {{DJ-stub}} boundary is sometimes blurred, but perhaps the solution is to (where necessary) simply use 2 or 3 of these stubs together. --Bruce1ee 06:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to duck the issue and create {{string-musician-stub}} instead. Caerwine 20:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement Park

edit

There is a stub for amusement park rides, but there is not a stub for amusement parks themselves. The closest one I have found that fits the article I have made is the one for tourism, but I do not believe it fits very well. I need to find some more examples, as for the moment I only have the one (which I have made), but I am fairly certain they exist as there is a good amount of amusement parks and such in America and the world that have stubs.

If anyone else can find an amusement park stub, it would be appreciated if you added to my list. ^o^

I will search for some more amusement park stubs in my leisure time to hopefully expand the list.

--Ihmhi 02:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ride-stub is used for both rides AND the parks as it says on the template. the parks are often double-stubbed with geo-stubs. BL kiss the lizard 04:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{Ireland-geo-stub}} ?

edit

This is quite large now with ~700 stubs. Nowhere near enough to split by county, but enough to split by province. I haven't counted but I should be surprised if {{Leinster-geo-stub}}, {{Munster-geo-stub}} and {{Connacht-geo-stub}} weren't viable. An {{Ulster-geo-stub}} is more problematic, as six of the nine counties of Ulster are already covered by {{NorthernIreland-geo-stub}}. We could possibly merge Connacht and the rump Ulster, like Ireland does for European Parliament elections? Morwen - Talk 09:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd prefer if this was left until there was enough for the county split. There are only 26 counties IIRC, so some of them may already be splittable. Even just taking the Dublin one out might just lower things considerably (sadly, my ancestral Roscommon may be one of the least splittable). Grutness...wha? 10:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, counting stubs starting A-B, I get 41 Connacht, 29 Leinster, 41 Munster, and 9 rump-Ulster. The largest single counties were Mayo (16), and Cork (21). Morwen - Talk 10:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the distributions the same over all 700 stubs, that would give you about 120 from Cork and 95 from Mayo - both definitely splittable. Those two alone would reduce the main category by nearly 30%. Grutness...wha? 12:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've more definite figures now, having counted them all (discarding non-obvious and multiples). Including only counties with >50 counted stubs, we get

  • Connacht : 186, including
    • Galway 58
    • Mayo 59
  • Leinster : 187, including
    • Dublin 75
  • Munster : 194, including
    • Cork 65
    • Kerry 50
  • Rump Ulster : 47

Co Dublin can be split out certainly. However, if it is agreed that we can't split by province, I won't advocate any more splitting.

Morwen - Talk 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With 65 stubs, Cork can be split as well, since we have been using that as a cut-off for a lot of geo-stub splits. Give the others time - they are close enough that they’ll soon be over 65, especially given how quickly the number of stubs is growing. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to suggest not bothering with the provinces, either; it's unlikely that the category will ever breach 800, without additional counties becoming splittable-off. Quick, someone think of three more stubbable topics in Galway and Mayo. Alai 04:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's go with {{Dublin-geo-stub}}, {{Cork-geo-stub}} then. Been seven days since I mooted this, so time to start splitting? Morwen - Talk 12:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they're up and running. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...and I loaded up your User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits page with stuff from my spreadsheet, since it seemed more sensible than starting a parallel page... Morwen - Talk 07:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The legacy of the state park stub-pile

edit

All the former state park stubs are now assigned according to where they are. And that means that three more US states have now reached a 65-stub threshold (well, I had to push one of them with three newly-minted stubs...). They are:

Given that some of you are impatient little geo-stub splitters (Hi, Mindmatrix :), I'll load up my stub-splitting page right away... Grutness...wha? 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the templates and categories for those impatient ones. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing Moe from The Simpsons, "I may be a geo-stub sorter, and I may be impatient - what was that third thing you said?" By the way, Grutness, does this make you the siren? :-) Mindmatrix 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, well... I'm not the least impatient when it comes to geo-stub splitting either. As to being the siren, though... :) Grutness...wha? 01:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airline stubs

edit

Category:Airline stubs has approx 700 articles now, so I've taken the liberty of suggesting the following subcategories: {{euro-airline-stub}} for european airlines, {{afr-airline-stub}} for african airlines, {{amer-airline-stub}} for airlines based in America (or a possible split to {{samer-airline-stub}} and {{namer-airline-stub}} for North/South-America), {{asian-airline-stub}} for airlines based in Asia, and {{oce-airline-stub}} for Oceania-based airlines. Bjelleklang - talk 14:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me! And thanks for the correction as well! Bjelleklang - talk 16:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One minor thought - Am-airline-stub could be a little confusing. We rarely have stubs for the Americas as a whole, though I doubt there'd be enough for CentralAm or Caribbean. The others are all fine, though. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about sorting according to continents, but as Central America and the Caribbean doesn't have too many airlines, I was thinking more of adding them to the South America category. Thus we'll end up with
As North America (and the US. in particular) has a large number of airlines, I think it would be just as good to sort directly into North/South, rather than doing this at a later date.
Anyway, unless there is any objections by friday nov. 18th., I'll go ahead and create the categories, stub templates, and begin the sorting. Bjelleklang - talk 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would object to Central America and the Caribbean being added to South America. Although culturally there is some overlap between the regions, I think it is geographically incorrect. What I would propose is having NorthAm-airline-stub include Central America and the Caribbean, with US-airline-stub as a daughter. Aecis praatpaal 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. But not so sure that Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada has enough airline-stubs to have it's own category, so I'm not so sure if we should have both a {{US-airline-stub}} as well as a {{NorthAm-airline-stub}} (including the Caribbean and Central Am.). Bjelleklang - talk 19:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to google, there are 55 stub articles about airlines from Central America, the Caribbean and Canada. It doesn't reach the threshold, but since it's quite close to it, and it would help maintain the usual hierarchy, I think we can IAR this one. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 20:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If nobody objects to the 6 categories mentioned above and {{CentralAm-airline-stub}}, I'll create and begin sorting on monday, november 21st. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 13:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be 23 stubs about Canadian airlines, and 32 about Central American airlines. Wouldn't it be better to merge the two into {{NorthAm-airline-stub}}. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 15:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I misunderstood you. I don't mind combining North America with Central America and the Caribbean, but I interpreted your previous post in the sense that you wanted an extra category for CentralAm/Caribbean. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal has been on this page for two weeks now. If there are no objections, I will begin creating the templates/categories and sorting the stubs tonight (European time). The templates I had in mind are {{Euro-airline-stub}}, {{Asia-airline-stub}}, {{Africa-airline-stub}}, {{NorthAm-airline-stub}}, {{SouthAm-airline-stub}}, {{Oceania-airline-stub}} and {{US-airline-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 14:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the templates and matching categories, I'm now busy filling them. When I'm done with that (hopefully tomorrow), I'll add the categories to WP:WSS/ST. Aecis praatpaal 21:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{mammal-stub}}

edit

This currently has 543 members. I could see splitting this further into {{rodent-stub}}, {{marine-mammal-stub}}, {{marsupial-stub}} and {{ungulate-stub}}.--Pharos 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

534 actually ;) (well, 533+the template). Do you have any numbers to support the suggested new stub types? --TheParanoidOne 20:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice enough articles on marsupials or marine mammals (but didn't look too closely for articles in those particular categories). I did see plenty of articles to warrant a {{rodent-stub}}, since every stub article on a rat, mouse, or vole is a rodent article. Rodents do make up about 30-40% of all living mammal species. An {{ungulate-stub}} might help, too, since there are lots of stubs on animals with hooves. I'd propose considering a {{bat-stub}} as well, since bats (along with rodents) constitute the lion's share of living mammal species. -- EncycloPetey 03:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the first 200 stubs and the groups so far that have at least 20 stubs (aka 10%) are:
  • Rodent (37) - as expected.
  • Horse (23) - though this encompasses a number of individual horses (mostly racehorses).
  • Extinct mammal (20) - a poor classification choice on my part, perhaps. Many of these could go into categories for currently existing animal groups, but some of them can't.
--TheParanoidOne 15:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the racehorses be moved to {{horseracing-stub}}? (Those articles are after all about individual mammals, not about mammal species. If we would include individual mammals in this category, we should add everyone in {{bio-stub}} and in every single one of its daughters.) Aecis praatpaal 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know that existed. In that case, yes. That makes sense. Anyway, once I've gone through the lot, I'll do a revised count. --TheParanoidOne 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I was remembering incorrectly about the racehorses. There were only 2. The top 5 groupings that I have are:
  • Rodent (81)
  • Extinct (61)
  • Horse (41)
  • Marsupial (33)
  • Shrew (25)
The only ones to reach the typical threshold are rodent and extinct. I'm not sure the latter is a useful enough grouping, but horse may be. So unless anyone has any objections, I'll create {{rodent-stub}} and {{horse-stub}} on Friday. --TheParanoidOne 22:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{ecology-stub}}

edit

This stub would greatly relieve the stress on {{biology-stub}}. I found more than 20 potential articles for the new stub in just the first 200 articles listed with biology stubs. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already had one of these... (checks list) no, you're right, we haven't, and it would probably be quite useful. Would you see Category:Sustainability stubs being a subcategory of it, or is that too different a subject? Grutness...wha? 03:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would work as a subcategory, given which articles currently are marked with that stub. -- EncycloPetey 06:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:Environmental stubs (name soon to change to Category:Environment stubs - how will it sit with that?Will there be much overlap? 202.180.83.6 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) (erm... this is Grutness, not logged in)[reply]
That should be a subcategory of ecology. The environment is one aspect of the study of ecology. See my reorganization of Biology basic topics to see the four primary groups of study of ecology, and some of the key topics under each. Most of the environment topics would fall into the ecosystems level of study. -- EncycloPetey 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ecology stub would be a great addition. I went through the biosci stubs last night, trying to take out the cellbio, medicine, etc. There were lots of ecology (and evolution, and genetics, etc) stubs InvictaHOG 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been just under a week, so I'll make the template & category now. -- EncycloPetey 08:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{percussionist-stub}}

edit

Not all percussionists are drummers, but between percussionists who are in Musician stubs but don't qualify for Drummer stubs and those in Drummer stubs who are either misfiled or play percussion instruments that aren't drums, there should be enough stubs to justify this stub to help thin out the Musician stubs even further. Caerwine 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Bjelleklang - talk 19:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there's a lot of overlap. Would someone who plays both be put into both categories? I've spent a huge amount of time dabbing percussion on album pages, and a good half of the albums have a person who plays "drums and percussion". Creating a separate category for these people will only increase confusion. Instead we should just rename drummer-stub to percussionist-stub, since drums are, technically, percussion instruments. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a move instead of a addition, but it's going to be a large category if we do. If current trends hold, I expect that once I finish my current sort through, Drummer stubs will have between 500 and 600 stubs, and then adding non-drummer percusionists on top of that will likely boost the count to at least 4 pages and maybe 5 pages which would be at the point that we'd start trying to split it anyway. There should be no need to double stub these as drummers would be a clear subcategory unlike the confusion with guitarist and bassist, where some would consider the two to be separate things. Caerwine 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{map-stub}}

edit

Category:Geographical term stubs has always been a grab-bag assortment of different geography stubs that weren’t about actual places, and it now has close to 350 stubs. I’d like to propose {{map-stub}} or {{cartography-stub}} for stubs relating to the science of cartography, and types of map. This should easily reach the 60 or 70 stub mark. Ideally, I’d also like to propose {{Paleo-geo-stub}} (or {{Palaeo-geo-stub}}) for prehistoric land-masses, lakes, rivers, and the like, but I’m not sure that has enough stubs yet (although a lot of them may be marked geology-stub). Grutness...wha? 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the articles I've added to that stub have boiled down to:
Bar (Foo)
A Bar is a type of administrative subdivision used in Foo.

Those stubs wouldn't fit under either a {{map-stub}} or {{cartography-stub}} obviously enough, but I wouldn't object to a {{cartography-stub}}, since I've wanted that for other articles, too few and uncounted for me to propose it myself. Caerwine 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of things like: Azimuthal equidistant projection, Cantino planisphere, Cardinal directions, Cartogram, Choropleth map, Contour interval, Digital raster graphic, Dilution of precision (GPS), Dual Independent Map Encoding, Elevation, European Terrestrial Reference System 1989, Dual naming, Fix (position), GLOBCOVER, Gauss-Krüger coordinate system, Geocomputation, Geodetic system, etc etc etc. Mind you, a {{geo-subdivision-stub}} or similar might be very useful, too. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created as {{Cartography-stub}}, with a redirect at {{map-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{polyhedron-stub}}

edit

I'm proposing a Category:Polyhedron stubs, with template {{polyhedron-stub}}. This would be a subcategory of Category:Geometry stubs, which at the last count was between 400 and 500 articles. This category would cover specific types of Polyhedron, e.g. Augmented sphenocorona, in the 3D sense. This should reduce the size of the Geometry stubs category quite a lot, and make it easier to see what other types of articles we have in there. I can find about 50 likely candidates on the first page, just by looking at the article name. Silverfish 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goa, Konkan stubs

edit

I would like to create a Goa and a Konkan stub, just as I have created the Konkan category and wish to expand both it and the Goa category. WikiSceptic 15:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A definite no on a potential {Konkan-stub}. When there has been a need to subdivide a country, we've always done so on the basis of political subdivisons, and Konkan is not one, nor a combination of them. A {{Goa-stub}} would be possible, and if it also covered the Union Territories that were formerly part of Portuguese India, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, I don't think people would complain and it would help the stub reach the 60 or so stubs that is normally considered to be a minimum threshold for creating a new stub category. Caerwine 20:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking Goa-stub or Goa-geo-stub here? If it's just a Goa-stub (i.e., for non-geographical things like the history or culture of Goa) then it could be a go-er sounds reasonable - as long as there are enough articles for it (60 or more). If it it's a geo-stub (for places in Goa) then no, since India's being split up according to current political subdivisions (e.g., Kerala-geo-stub and TamilNadu-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 00:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I want a Goa stub that will be catch-all for now; if it becomes large enought, it can be split. India is not a country, and India, a political entity that is only about 50 years old cannot be used to justify a denial of Konkan identity that is more than two thousand years old. Although at the moment there is no Konkan Pradesh, that is no reason to assume that this will always be so; there is great pressure to carry forward the States Reorganization Committee 1957's work, that has been unjust to smaller nationalities (e.g., Kodagu, Kutch, Vidarbha, Khandesh, Telengana, Kamptapur, Bhojpur, Brajbhoom, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, Rohilkhand, Videha-Maithilkhand, etc.), and to establish new provinces. Again, I hope that someday, the Indian Union, which is an artificial country, goes the same way as the USSR, Checkoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and that the Konkan can emerge once again in its own right as an independent country. Anyway, regardless of the political question, the Konkan is a historic and ethnic territory and cultural region and must be recognized as such. Goa and Bombay both fall within it. Neither of you have given any good reasons why there should not be a Konkan stub; this stub must cover all the places within the historical Konkan - Surat, Dadra, Silvasa, Districts of Thane, Bombay, Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, and the cities of Karwar, Honavar, Gokarn, Hubli & Dharwar, etc. As for Goa, once Goans get to working on it, there will be far more than the mere 60 entries.
For all political purposes, India most certainly is a country. Saying it isn't becuase it's only existed as a county for 50 years or so would remove 50% of countries from the world map. Scratch Ghana, Malaysia, Pakistan, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Croatia, Belarus, Uganda, Congo DR, China PR, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, Algeria, Morocco, Eritrea, Somalia... Stubs which concern locations concern where they are now, so Goa-geo-stub and Konkan-geo-stub make no sense - neither are currently political entities of the form by which India's geo-stubs are being split up. You might as well argue for a Viking-geo-stub to cover all the lands that were occupied by Viking rulers (thereby covering everything from Ireland to Ukraine). If India splits up into separate nations, then we'll consider changing the stub organisation of it, but until that time, we use what is there. As for cultural/historical entities, that is a different matter, but I'm still not entirely convinced that it would be that useful. Grutness...wha? 06:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is India a "Country"? I have run heads on this subject over and over again; I have therefore decided to create a page that explains what you could say is "my" stand: A Primer of Politics. WikiSceptic 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Goa is a state, and which is what we're dividing {{India-geo-stub}} by, so a {{Goa-geo-stub}} wouldn't be unreasonable - if it has 60 or so appropriate articles. --Mairi 07:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain to me why you believe Goa to be a state, by which I understand you to mean a province of Bharat? Do you also believe in the legitimacy of Hitler's occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc., and as their being integral parts of Germany? WikiSceptic 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They were never part of Germany. They were occupied as part of the GrossDeutschesReich, but that's not the same thing - and the legitimacy of that occupation was never recognised by the majority of the international community. However, Goa is recognised in the vast majority of the international community as being part of India, and is officially regarded as a state of such by authorities both within and outside the country - even the former colonial power of Portugal recognises it as being part of India. Most importantly as far as WP:WSS is concerned, Wikipedia's article on India lists India as a country and Goa as one of its constituent states. The legality of India's occupation may be questionable, but it is internationally accepted. Considering it part of India for the purposes of stub splitting is no different from considering West Papua part of Indonesia, or Tibet part of China. Or Calais part of France and Kaliningrad part of Russia, for that matter. Grutness...wha? 11:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - you're right of course. Konkan-geo-stub would still be a bad move, though. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSceptic, calm down. Your use of "Hitler" and "denial of identity" adds nothing to this discussion. We don't deal with the world as it should be, but as it is. Perhaps India is an artificial country. Perhaps Konkan should become independent. Perhaps the Indian states should be redivided. Perhaps a Konkan Pradesh should be created. But that is of little to no concern to Wikipedia. India exists, and when we divide Indian geography stubs, we use the Indian states as "tools" to sort the Indian geography stubs. Last time I checked, Konkan was not an state in India, so that one is not an option. Iff Konkan Pradesh becomes a state of India and there are enough stub articles, then I see no objections to such a template/category. But until that time, Konkan is not an option. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 11:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{bcast-stub}}

edit

We have a bit of a disconnect in the broadcasting stubs. The generic broadcasting stubs use {{broadcasting-stub}} while the splits based on the region where some broadcasting takes place use {{*-bcast-stub}}. Personally, I could live with having {{bcast-stub}} as a redirect of {{broadcasting-stub}}, but having it be the other way around would be a way to subtly promote the use of {{bcast-stub}} as it would show up in the list of templates used when editting and would help create a degree of uniforimity in the name. The alternative way to create uniformity would be to take the various {{*-bcast-stub}}'s and turn them into {{*-broadcasting-stub}}'s, but that would take a lot more effort, and I'm not certain if it would be worth the gain. Caerwine 19:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive13&oldid=1140391950"