Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive18

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals

Proposals, November 2005

edit

{{succulent-stub}}

edit

This stub would greatly relieve the stress on {{plant-stub}}. The category would include all the cacti and ice plant stubs, among others. I noticed a lot of these as I was marking articles with the new {{tree-stub}} tag, though I don't have an exact count. --EncycloPetey 05:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky - 'succulent' is a very hard one to define. Are there enough cactus stubs to warrant a cactus-stub of their own? (I'd suspect not). Otherwise, a {{herbaceous plant-stub}} stub could be more useful - MPF 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'succulent' is well enough defined that there are books about succulent plants, societies for the study and cultivation of succulents, and succulent sections of many major botanical gardens. Between the Cactaceae, Aizoaceae, Agavaceae, and Asphdelaceae (or Aloeaceae) there are plenty of stubs to fill such a category, but there's probably not enough Cactus stub articles on their own to warrant a separate stub. As for a separate stub for plants that are herbaceous, well that seems a bit redundant, since the majority of plants in {{plant-stub}} are herbs or shrubs. In any case, the stub categorization is intended only to be temporary until the articles aren't stubs any more. Whether we create a permanent Succulent category is an entirely separate issue that we don't have to deal with right now. --EncycloPetey 02:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{behavior-stub}}

edit

This stub would relieve the stress on {{psych-stub}} and would include a fair number of articles on plant and animal behavior currently stuffed into {{biosci-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 08:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would use {{behave-stub}}, to avoid the o/ou controversy, or {{ethology-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 10:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that the term ethology is not well-enough known; it doesn't appear in any of the dictionaries I hvae at hand. Also, that term may not include as broad a set of topics as behavior would. I'm not sure how I feel about {{behave-stub}} as an alternative, but you're right that we should try to avoid spellings that would be controversial. -- EncycloPetey 10:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ethology is narrower in scope than behavioral science (which also includes psychology and anthopolgy as sub cats). However, given the appraent focus of where the stubs that are to be regrouped are coming from, perhaps {{biopsychology-stub}} → Category:Biopsychology stubs → Category:Biopsychology would prove a useful stub that avoids having to deal with the o/ou controversy for now and do what the proposer intends. Caerwine 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{perception-stub}}

edit

There a quite a number of stub articles under this topic in {{psych-stub}}, {{biosci-stub}}, and {{neuroscience-stub}}. IT seems a useful addition, and would include basic biology of vision and hearing, and well as cognitive processes associated with the reception of environmental stimuli, such as those topics associated with photobiology. --EncycloPetey 16:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heh... my real area of expertise (though I'm pretty rusty). Conflating perception and cognition may cause a few minor concerns, though it's understandable and is probably a good idea. This would be a logical subcategory of psych (as would the behaviour-stub suggested above. Are you thinking of including psychophysics articles as part of this new category? Grutness...wha? 10:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be someone else's call, since that's an area I'm not so familiar with. My own interest in perception comes through mathematics and art history. I've read the Scientific American volume on Perception, and the relevant chapter of Philip Zimbardo's incredible psychology textbook, but it's not my area of expertise. If you can suggest specific parameters, it would be a great help. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's getting close to ten years since I finished my MSc (with a thesis on visual perception of angles), so I'm a bit rusty. I know of Zimbardo's book, though I was in the (un?)enviable situation of having a thesis supervisor who wrote text books too (actually, he's an occasional Wiki editor, too - User:Robert P. O'Shea. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montenegro stub types

edit

Currently, there are three stub categories relating to Serbia and Montenegro, Category:Serbia and Montenegro stubs (13 articles), Category:Serbia stubs (155 articles) and Category:Montenegro stubs (5 articles). All but Category:Serbia stubs are seriously underpopulated. I propose:

There are about 70 bio-stubs in Category:Serbia stubs. Conscious 09:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you do realise this was all debated and sorted out only a couple of weeks ago, don't you? Have a look at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/October 2005#Serbia and Montenegro. A separate bio-stub's not a bad idea, but I think we can afford to keep the Montenegro-stub around for now to see what happens with it. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. For now, I withdraw first of the proposals. Conscious 10:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I had a quick look round... the Montenegro category's up to 40 stubs now :) Grutness...wha? 10:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We really need {{Serbia-bio-stub}} now. Take a look at {{Serbia-stub}} for yourself; it contains well over 60 biographies. Duja 10:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK to create {{Serbia-bio-stub}} now? Duja 09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no-one's objected, so yeas it's OK - but it might be better to make it SerbiaMontenegro-bio-stub, for now at least. Grutness...wha? 09:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'll stick to Serbia-bio-stub. I'll do the creation and article fixing tomorrow. Duja 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{socialistparty-stub}}

edit

I propose a stub category for socialist and social democratic parties around the world; a similiar stub category already exists for liberal parties. I have listed 422 articles that could be included under this category on my talk page. I have divided up the party articles into four sections: parties from Europe, the Americas, from Africa, and from Asia and the Pacific. I think there are enough articles for them to be further separated into these four regions, much as the more general political party stubs already are.

Actually If I had my druthers, I rather delete {{liberalparty-stub}}, as it's too laxly defined to be of much use. I could see perhaps having a {{socialistparty-stub}}, but I would want it restricted to those that have chosen to affiliate with one of international socialist organizations. Caerwine 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would find that problematic, though, because there are lots of explicitly socialist groups (like the Socialist Party USA) that don't have international affiliations and others (like Plaid Cymru) that have international affiliation but not with socialist bodies. That's effectively a bias in favour of the Socialist International.
Whether parties identify as socialist or social democratic stub can at times can be mushy (and that's just as true with SI members as non-SI members) but should that stop us? I think a stub category would encourage people with an interest to contribute, and I think that's a benefit that outweighs being too lax. If a party article is given a socialist or social democratic stub and a user disagrees, then it can act as a catalyst for them to edit the page and add more content. aliceinlampyland 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
To be honest, I'm with Caerwine. I'd far rather see parties split by region than by their political alignment in general. I think it's far more likely that articles about socialist parties in the Balkans would be edited by people knowing about Balkan politics than socialist politics. As to the fuzziness of the border being an impetus to edit, it's usually an impetus to edit-war. I've seen stub templates swapped backwards and forwards on articles by people who would be far better employed extending the articles. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the continental party stub categories are too large and have the potential to become much larger, and that the logical way to fix that is by continent and by ideology at the same time. Moreover I think it's setting bad precident if liberal party articles have a stub category but other ideologies aren't allowed to create them. aliceinlampyland 16:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Continents are usually split by countries, which would mean we'd same get a category for German parties, one for French parties, etc etc. Far more logical to split things that way, and it parallels the way other stubs are split. As to the liberal party stubs, as I said, I'd be far happier to get rid of that category too - and the communist party one. If you're an Italian socialist, which are you more likely to know something about: an Italian liberal party, or a Norwegian socialist party? Grutness...wha? 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, December 2005

edit

Split of {{journalist-stub}}

edit

This intended to also serve as an indirect way of trimming the writer stubs, especially the 9 page {{US-writer-stub}} by reducing the need for the use of writer stubs to serve to indicate print journalists by double stubbing them with writer.

Because it has not been unusual for radio and tv journalists to switch back and forth, and I'm not certain if we have enough radio journalist stubs, I'm proposing a single stub for both. Caerwine 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will tvbio-stub cause problems with bcast-journalist-stub? BL kiss the lizard 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten how overpopulated (7 pages) {{tv-bio-stub}} is. Perhaps it would be wiser to do a {{tv-journalist-stub}} instead and then see if a {{radio-journalist-stub}} is needed once the journalist stubs have been restubbed. At 193 stubs {{radio-bio-stub}} is not in any immediate need of splitting. I'm not heavily against a {{radio-journalist-stub}}; I'm just rather uncertain that it would have 60+ stubs right now. Caerwine 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Transformers-stub}}

edit

This was proposed earlier but rejected. I propose it again. Transformers (toyline) is one of the most important toylines of the 1980s. When it was originally launched, it had over 300 toys, a TV show with 98 episodes, a movie, and a monthly comic book. It has lately been resurrected in various forms. Stubs related to Transformers have previously been marked {{toys-stub}}, {{comics-stub}}, {{Marvel-Comics-stub}} or {{animation-stub}}. The problem is that Transformers can not be identified objectively and undisputably as either a toyline or an animated series. It is a fictional continuum all to itself, with various representations of it available in the real world. Also the categories are a little overpopulated: Category:Toys stubs has 242 articles, Category:Comics stubs has 626, Category:Marvel Comics stubs has 365, and Category:Animation stubs has 444. — JIP | Talk 07:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to this one, for a very simple reason. There don't appear to be enough stub articles relating to the Transformers to warrant a stub for just the transformers. That's not to say that there aren't a good number of articles about the robots in disguise, just that most of them have already progressed past the stage of being stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked all stub articles in both Category:Transformers and its subcategories? I personally must have created well over 20. My main concern is, however, currently some Transformers stubs are being marked as toys stubs, some as comics stubs, and some as animation stubs. We need to unify these to a single stub template. It needs to cover all the Transformers stubs, but not necessarily be limited to them. As far as I know, we don't have {{TV-show-and-comic-book-based-on-toyline-stub}}. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest you draw up a list of about 60 stubs that would go in this category? Morwen - Talk 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find twice that many in Category:Transformers, Category:Transformers characters, Category:Autobots and Category:Decepticons alone. I've included articles that are very short but don't have stub templates.
Action Master, Aerialbot, Allspark, Angolmois energy, Atlantis Pattern, Autobot Clone, Walter Barnett, Battle of Autobot City, Michael Bell, Berko
Binary-bonding, G. B. Blackrock, Blaster (Transformers), Boltax, Brakedown, Bruticus, Bud (Transformers), Camshaft (Transformers), Carbombya, Carissa Carr
Clocker (Transformers), Club Con, Cobalt Sentries, Coby, Cosmos (Transformers), Peter Cullen, Cruellock, Crumplezone, Cyber Planet Key, Decepticon Clone
Depth Charge, Floro Dery, Diagnostic Drone, Dirt Boss, Doubledealer, Duocon, Elita One, Emirate Xaaron, Energo sword, Galen Kord
Dan Gilvezan, Hoist (Transformers), Hound (Transformers), Hubcap (Transformers), Hydra-Cannon, Jhiaxus, Keeper (Transformers), Kicker (Transformers), Last Autobot, Liege Maximo
Mechanic (Transformers), Meijin Zarak, Metalhawk, Metallikato, Minerva (Transformers), Micromaster, Monsterbots, John Moschitta, Mudflap, Neo-Knights
Nucleon (Power Source), Omega Lock, Omnicon, Henry Orenstein, Orion Pax, Overhaul, Override (Transformers), Pax Cybertronia, Perceptor, Powerglide (Transformers)
Prima (Transformers), Prime Nova, Primon, Protectobot, Protoform, Punch-Counterpunch, Rapid Anti-Robot Assault Team, Requiem Blaster, Ricochet (Transformers), Robot Master (Transformers)
Scramble City, Scraplets, Seekers (Transformers), Sentinel Maximus, Sentinel Prime, Sharkticon, Sixshot, Skyboom Shield, Slingshot (Transformers), Slugslinger
Stakeout (Transformers), John Stephenson (actor), Straxus, Strika, Sunstreaker, Superdimensional teleport gate, Superion, Swarm (Transformers), Target:2006, Targetmaster
Tech spec, Teletraan I, Terrorcon, Throttlebot, Tigerhawk, Tornedron, Trannies (Transformers), Transformers (game), Transformers: Convoy no Nazo, Transmetal
Triple Changer, Ultracons, Underbase, Universal greeting, Vector Prime (Transformers), Vehicon, Wash'n'Roll, Wreckers (Transformers), Z Foundation (Transformers), Zone Energy
— JIP | Talk 09:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Support. Morwen - Talk 11:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-struct-stub}}

edit

This parallels discussion at WP:SFD. Originally, I proposed a re-scope of Oceania-struct-stub, since 3/4 of the stubs in that category were for Australia. But a scrounge around various other categories and the creation of a handful more stubs has raised the number of non-Australian stubs in this category above the 50 mark, and it wouldn't take much more effort to get it into the mid 60s. I think it now makes more sense to add this as a new subcat rather than rescoping the old one. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Doll-stub}}

edit

barbie-stub was found and taken to sfd becuase it wasnt a good split of toy stub. but doll-stub probably would be a very useful split, for dolls, stuffed toys and action figures and things like bionicles. i havent done a thorugh count but it looks like there are fifty or so in Category:Toys stubs alone.BL kiss the lizard 05:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see lumping in action figures with dolls, since it's just a marketing ploy to sell dolls to boys and from there to transformers and the like, and once you go that far I can see lumping in the stuffed animals. However, without all that exposition, who is going to call a teddy bear a doll? (Except for Wikipedia that is, which includes Teddy bear in Category:Dolls.) There are two other logical splits of {{toy-stub}} that are both less ambiguous and would also serve to eliminate double stubbing:
  • {{toy-corp-stub}} would have have about fifty stubs from just {{toy-stub}} and would serve to also thin the very large {{corp-stub}}
  • {{toy-product-stub}} would easily have more than the 60 stubs generally considered a minimum and cover various brand name toys.
Thus for example if they were all stubs teddy bear would have {{toy-stub}}, Teddy Ruxpin would have {{toy-product-stub}}, and Worlds of Wonder which first made T. Ruxpin would have {{toy-corp-stub}}. In any case, with less than 250 known toy-related stubs, a split is hardly urgent. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok sounds more useful that doll-stub. ill support that one instead. BL kiss the lizard 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two more nationality band stubs

edit

Another pass through {{band-stub}} has revealed enough stubs to populate two more nationality band stub categories. I'm proposing:

Support {{Japan-band-stub}} and {{Norway-band-stub}}. Mushintalk 15:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive18&oldid=1138356534"