Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive8

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals

Proposals, August 2005

edit

Stub confusion: Broadcast and TV stubs

edit

From what I can tell from looking at the articles in the various broadcast and TV categories, many other editors are as confused about what should go into the different categories as I am, and looking at the information on the category pages does not provide any enlightenment IMHO. Seeing that there are 7 pages of TV stubs, and over 500 articles just in US broadcasting stubs, I think that a major reorganization may be in order. Here's just a rough idea of what I was thinking should be done:

  • TV stations
  • TV shows
  • TV biographies
  • Radio stations
  • Radio programs
  • Radio biographies
  • Cable & satellite channels
  • Cable & satellite shows
  • Broadcast networks (any network--TV, radio, cable, etc.)

Many of these categories should get US & UK subcategories, and some may even need Canadian, Australian, EU, and Asian subdivisions. Many of the specialty broadcasting stubs (e.g. Star Trek) can probably stay, but some may need some changes (such as the soap opera character stub, which I think could be broadened into a general soap opera stub). At the same time, the reorganization could be used to drop some of the less useful broadcast stubs. Eventually we'll probably need an internet radio and even a podcasting stub category added as well. BlankVerse ∅ 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea. Ceyockey started to work on this sort of thing before he left WP:WSS to concentrate on other areas. A few questions/suggestions:
  1. would it be better to expand the soapchar stub into any stub relating to a fictional TV character, rather than expanding it into Soap operas in general?
  2. do we need the separate tv and radio biography stubs - wouldn't a lot of the people in there be better fitted into other categories such as actor-stub?
  3. I'm not entirely convinced by the cable & satellite show stub category. A lot of shows created and shown on cable TV are shown on terrestrial tv in other countries (here in NZ we get both Deadwood and Six Feet Under on free-to-air terrestrial, for example, but I think both were cable productions). I think those two categories could be happily subsumed by the TV stations/TV shows parents.

Grutness...wha? 14:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Soap operas: I was only thinking that soap opera fans are just as fanatical as SF fans—they just haven't had time to invade the Wikipedia yet. Even if we don't have a general soap opera stub in the near future, I KNOW that we will have one eventually. I've got Sunset Beach in my watchlist only because it's based upon near where I grew up, and that show, which only lasted a couple of years, has gone from a sub-stub into a very long, involved explanation of all the soap opera machinations.

re:TV & radio bios: I was thinking that TV-bio would be everybody but the actors—i.e. news anchors, directors, writers, show creators, network executives, etc. As for radio personalities also being actors—that only happens here in LA (e.g. Steve Harvey, Gary Owens of Laugh-In, etc.).

re:cable shows: I did that out of symetry, but you are right. Even here in the US, there are cable shows that have a second life as on-air reruns, or are shown on both cable and as first-run syndication. BlankVerse ∅ 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on soap opera characters some more...it's probably best to leave that stub. I'm sure that eventually we will end up with a plethora of articles on soap opera characters, and although many of the articles will grow to the same size as many of the articles on characters in Frank Herbert's Dune, many more will remain lowly stubs. BlankVerse ∅ 13:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find remarkable is that there is no Category:Media stubs with matching template. This category could be a parent category to {{tv-stub}}, {{news-stub}}, {{broadcasting-stub}}, etc, and some kind of a doggybag for articles that fit in more than one of these stub categories. Aecis 14:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movie stubs

edit
This idea has been debated here several times, but we've never reached a decision over it - we've had the ideas of splitting by genre, by decade, or by country of origin (some of the previous debate is in Archive 16. It really does need splitting though. if the main categories are most clearly split by genre, then perhaps that would be the best way. Perhaps
would be five logical splits. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think : {{crime-film-stub}} would be useful, too Lectonar 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should start these stubs now! --SuperDude 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont't be hasty; give it a weeks time... :) Lectonar 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Law Stub

edit

I propose the creaton of {{scots-law-stub}} as I am increasingly finding more and more stubs on Scots law for law in Scotland and having to identify them as {{law-stub}}. The Law stubs page is already massive. Davidkinnen 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them do you think there are? I know Scots law is very distinctive, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few. And - although I can understand the reason for name you suggest - would there be any objections to Scotland-law-stub? (BTW - you might want to remove your sandbox from Category:Scottish law! Grutness...wha? 10:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the {{law-stub}} category is massive, and for people who may wish to edit stubs that are specific to a particlar legal system it may be more sensible to subdivide the whole lot into {{common-law-stub}} and {{civil-law-stub}}. Davidkinnen 09:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - that didn't really answer my question. If we assume that there are enough then - since it's true that Scottish law is unique - is the name Scotland-law-stub acceptable? It would be more in keeping with normal stub naming. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be incorrect, however. Surely the name of the stub should match the name of the system it's attached to? - SoM 14:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SoM: Scots law is a term, not a classification. However, what about {{civil-law-stub}}, {{criminal-law-stub}}, {{common-law-stub}}? nae'blis (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{civil-law-stub}} is an extremely poor choice for template name because civil law has three distinct meanings depending upon whether it means the opposite of common, criminal, or natural law. Caerwine 00:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Politicians by State

edit

After noticing {{Maryland-politician-stub}} and the huge bloated size of the main US politician stub category (around 2200 stubs), I thought I'd make a quick check to see how the numbers work out. Results are HERE. I moved through them rather quickly, so there is a margin of error built into the numbers, but they should be proportionally accurate given the size of the category. Which state do we want to stop at? GeeJo (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I use 75 for the state-geo-stub splits... so the borderline would be around the Alabama/Texas area. If you split down to 9and including) Texas, that would give seven more state-specific politician stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the editors involved in the California WikiProject just created List of Speakers of the California State Assembly, which, if fully populated, would add 50 more stubs to the 149 that already exist to California. Since he seems to be a bit of political junkie, I'm sure that a {{California-politician-stub}} would be very useful. Also, there are probably more politicians in {{US-bio-stub}} who haven't been categorized (and is another huge category that could probably have some state-bio-stubs created). BlankVerse ∅ 10:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of road stubs

edit

I'd like to have a whole bunch of stubs approved per the discussion under U.S. Highway Stub:

I'm not sure if dashes are needed, or if I should use route instead of highway. However, {{US-road-stub}} has over 600 articles in it, as does {{road-stub}}. Something needs to be done about this... --Rschen7754

I also need to add that {{Kentucky State Highway Stub}} has been created (for its associated WP). --Rschen7754

In anwer to your question, theoretically they should have hyphens, but so far none of the other State Highway stubs do. I noted in a section further up the page that they're "in a list of stubs to take to sfd for renaming at some point". Personally, I'd prefer to see them shortened, too, perhaps to something like Maryland-SHwy-stub, but I might be in the minority. One more point - if they were to be hyphenated, it should be as xxx-statehighway-stub, and one of them would be NewHampshire-statehighway-stub (or possibly -StateHighway- ). Input is greatly needed here from other stub sorters! Canada-road-stub, though, is long overdue, and I've often thought of proposing it myself. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to see them hyphenated. at the very least, "stub" should be lowercase. Something of the form xxx-statehighway-stub would be my preference, as it fits best with the other stub categories. Shortened would be nice, but I don't thing there's any obvious way to abbreviate "State Highway"... --Mairi 17:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{XX-st-hwy-stub}}, where XX is the two letter postal code for the state? It's fairly short, and consistent with other stub categories, no? Even shorter would be {{XX-road-stub}} or {{Xxxxx-road-stub}}, either of which is consistent with its parent {{US-road-stub}}. GTBacchus 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't use the two-letter U.S. postal abbreviations for stubs. Also, these are state routes, not just any ole roads in the state. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive4#U.S._Highway_Stub for more info.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can we do something so that more WikiProjects are aware of this project? As a lot of them make stubs for their project, but usually any standardized names, and without this project knowing about them. It'd save alot of trouble discovering/renaming/deleting them... --Mairi 17:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering starting a US Roads WP to coordinate the us road articles... and I'll try to say something about this WP if I do.--Rschen7754 06:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start creating the stubs listed above soon (within next month)... I'm currently classifying the Interstate stubs right now. When I do create them I'll note it above and on the stub types page. I'll substitute hyphens instead of spaces for now for consistency... how do I create a stub redirect for WA though?.--Rschen7754 00:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply move the template to a new title. The old name will automatically redirect to it (and don't do what I didthe first time I tried this - remember to specify that the new name is a template!) Grutness...wha? 01:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, September 2005

edit

Jewish biography stub

edit

Proposal by Nowhither 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose the creation of a stub tag for biographies of Jews, tentatively called "Jewish-bio-stub". This would be for biographical stubs about people who are notable primarily as Jews.

This tag would be appropriate for a number of existing stub articles that have no meaningful biographical stub tag; that is, they either have the (relatively useless) "Bio-stub", or else no biographical stub tag at all. Some examples:

Other biographical stubs, that currently do have a meaningful bio stub tag, might still be candidates for "Jewish-bio-stub". For example:

This last category includes some marked as "religious figures":

I am aware that biographical stubs are traditionally sorted by either nationality or occupation, and being Jewish is neither of those. However, I think it is clear that this tag would be a useful way for editors to find articles to work on (which is the point of stub tags).

— Nowhither 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't simply adding the already existing {{JewHist-stub}} do the trick? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{JewHist-stub}} is not a biographical stub. It's semi-appropriate, of course, and, as my links above show, it is used. Similarly, we could mark all scientists with {{Sci-stub}}, but we don't because we have a biographical stub: {{Scientist-stub}}. Use of {{JewHist-stub}} is very appropriate for articles like Second Temple Period and Government of ancient Israel, but it is not quite optimal for stubs about people. — Nowhither 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:) Believe me, I know that. Which is why I said adding the stub rather that replacing. Nationality and occupation are the usual ways to split people, and while I realise that the jewish faith is a specific case where a religion-bio-stub would make sense, I'm just a bit chary about setting a precedent that crosses other categories. Rather than being like marking scientists with sci-stub, it's more like marking relativity researchers with both physicist-stub and relativity-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been one semi-negative comment here. That's it. I like the idea, and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism was largely positive. So do I create the stub tag? I'm not sure .... — Nowhither 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it for now - see if it gets further comments one way or the other. Sometimes these things percolate for a while before there's any definite decision. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - though I realise the two categories are overlapping rather than in any way being near to identical, you might be interested that Israel-bio-stub is very likely to be created soon. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchange stubs (created as {{stockexchange-stub}})

edit

The Category:Economics and finance stubs is filled with articles about stock exchanges and indices (I hope to have the exact count finished by tomorrow). This leads me to propose a template {{stock exchange-stub}} and a category that goes along with it. Aecis 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like the idea, but not the name - losing the space to make stockexchange-stub would be better, but something else is likely to be better still... Grutness...wha? 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone through Category:Economics and finance stubs and Category:Stock exchanges. So far, I've found 70 stubs articles relating to stock exchanges, 46 in Category:Economics and finance stubs and 24 in Category:Stock exchanges. So the size of the new stub category shouldn't be that much of a problem. What do you see as an alternative to {{stockexchange-stub}}? I can't think of any. Aecis 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. I had a nagging feeling that there was a better name, but couldn't put my finger on it. Perhaps stockmarket-stub? That would also allow for a slightly broader interpretation of what could be stubbed with it. I'm a little unsure of the difference though, and the Wikipedia articles are a bit vague, just saying that they're not the same thing, without really pointing out the differences. Or brokerage-stub - or is that too ambiguous? If the term bourse was wider used it would solve the problem, but it isn't. Perhaps it's best to go with stockexchange-stub. Grutness...wha? 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another option might be stock-stub or stocks-stub, but that might be too ambiguous and might not be intuitive enough. I think stockexchange-stub is the most intuitive of all options (NYSE, FTSE). I'll see if I can find a better option in the next few days. Aecis 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Footyclub-stub}}

edit

The Category:Football (soccer) stubs is getting seriously overpopulated. Most of the articles in the category are about football clubs. And since there already is a daughter category English football club stubs, I would like to propose new daughter categories of Category:Football (soccer) stubs:

  1. {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} / Category:African football (soccer) club stubs
  2. {{Asia-footyclub-stub}} / Category:Asian football (soccer) club stubs
  3. {{Euro-footyclub-stub}} / Category:European football (soccer) club stubs
  4. {{SAm-footyclub-stub}} / Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs
  5. {{US-footyclub-stub}} / Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs

If there are any clubs (for instance from Australia or New Zealand) that are not covered by these categories, there are two options:

  1. They remain in the Category:Football (soccer) stubs
  2. They are moved to a Category:Football (soccer) club stubs, which could then function as a parent category of the stub categories I proposed.

After this move, creating national daughter categories should be much easier, similar to what is happening with Geo Stubs. I would also like to propose renaming {{eng-club-stub}} to {{eng-footyclub-stub}}. Aecis 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 of sorting out Category:Football (soccer) stubs would be the creation of three other stub templates and categories ({{footyorg-stub}} for national federations and continental confederations, {{footystadium-stub}} for stadiums and {{footyleague-stub}} for domestic and international leagues), but their viability can only be established once the club articles are moved to daughter categories. Aecis 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - though I think that the Euro category will probably need further splitting. I'd suggest a couple of minor changes though (my changes in italics)-
  1. {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} / Category:African football (soccer) club stubs
  2. {{AO-footyclub-stub}} / Category:Asian and Oceanian football (soccer) club stubs
  3. {{Euro-footyclub-stub}} / Category:European football (soccer) club stubs
    1. {{England-footyclub-stub}} (rather than Eng)
    2. {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}}
  4. {{SAm-footyclub-stub}} / Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs
  5. {{Concacaf-footyclub-stub}} / Category:CONCACAF football (soccer) club stubs (see note below)
    1. {{US-footyclub-stub}} / Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs

This divides up the soccer world in much the way that FIFA does (but combines Asia and Oceania, something which may happen yet with FIFA anyway). CONCACAF is the official FIFA term for North and Central America plus the Caribbean. A better name would be desirable here, if someone can think of one! Grutness...wha? 23:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply {{NAm-footyclub-stub}}? Central America is usually viewed as a part of North America and given a choice between only NAm and SAm, I know that I's include the Caribbean in NAm as well. Caerwine 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erm... excuse me for asking an impertinent question, but where abouts do you live? I only ask because I've never heard of Central America or the Caribbean being viewed of as part of North America. I think if you had a NAm-footyclub-stub, someone would come along very quickly and create CAm-footyclub-stub and Caribbean-footyclub-stub. I'd certainly never consider adding NAm-footyclub-stub to clubs in Jamaica, Honduras or the like. Grutness...wha? 13:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S., but I'm hardly alone in considering Central America as part of North America. To quote the first sentence of Wiikpedia's own article on Central America, "Central America is the region of North America located between the southern border of Mexico and the northwest border of Colombia, in South America." As for the Caribbean, I agree that it might require some patrolling to populate the stubs appropriately, but there shouldn't be all that many Caribbean footy stubs. Of course, the text of the stub should make it clear that Central America and the Caribbean are included. Caerwine 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting discussion, between Caerwine and Grutness. Which brings the following thought to mind: wouldn't it be less ambiguous to sort by confederation, instead of by continent? This would mean that clubs from for instance Kazakhstan, Turkey or Israel would fall under {{UEFA-footyclub-stub}}, while clubs from North and Central America and the Caribbean (and Guyana and Suriname from South America) would fall under {{CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? Aecis 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do many parts of the world think of soccer when they hear the term "footy club"? I think of Aussie Rules as "footy". --Scott Davis Talk 15:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Template:Football-stub is a redirect to Template:Footy-stub (there is no Template:Soccer-stub). And since the template is footy-stub, I think it's best to make this template use footyclub-stub, for the sake of consistency. Australian Rules football uses {{afl-stub}}, American Football uses {{Amfootball-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An elaboration of the above proposal on sorting by confederation instead of by continent: this proposal, if approved, would lead to six new stub templates: {{AFC-footyclub-stub}}, {{CAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{CONMEBOL-footyclub-stub}}, {{CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{OFC-footyclub-stub}} and {{UEFA-footyclub-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea as far as sorting is concerned, but the names aren't widely known to non-soccer fans. Also it leaves the problem of Oceania - almost all the (small number of) stubs for that will be Australian, and Australia is in the process of moving from OFC to AFC. I still think it would be better to combine those two regions (in terms of stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that there seems to be little argument about Euro-footyclub-stub, US-footyclub-stub or Africa-footyclub-stub - even just splitting these three off will be very useful, so perhaps it's worth doing that for now and thinking some more about how to split off the rest. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and after 5pm CET I can help :) What about SAm-footyclub-stub, or for instance Brazil-footyclub-stub and Scotland-footyclub-stub? The Euro-footyclub-stub category will probably become large enough to already start thinking about split-offs. Aecis 11:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They probably would be useful - but I'd stick with a few main ones first - that will at least empty the main category considerably, and will make it easier to work out where the next splits will be. It may be that you find yourself thinking "wow - a lot of these seem to be from Norway!" or something like that. I know from the geo-stubs that it isn't always the obvious places that have the most stubs. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find myself thinking that, I found myself being impatient ;) Aecis 16:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have created euro-footyclub-stub, Africa-footyclub-stub and US-footyclub-stub. Australia doesn't have to be much of a problem: there are probably enough Australian clubs for an Australia-footyclub-stub template. For as long as Australia is under the OFC, it can be sorted under Oceania-footyclub-stub. When Australia moves to the AFC (I don't know when that will happen), it can be sorted under Asia-footyclub-stub. If Asia and Oceania are fully merged, we might retain both templates, but have them both feed into "Asian and Oceanian football clubs," or something to that extent, and delete "Asian football clubs" and "Oceanian football clubs." What also needs to be made very explicit, is that clubs from Israel, Turkey and Kazakhstan should get euro-footyclub-stub, because their national federations are UEFA members. After all, we follow the sports continents, not the geographic continents. (Right?) Aecis 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly makes sense to do so in cases like this. With geo-stubs, we tend to overlap a bit, putting individula country categories into two continent parents where necessary, but given that the confederations make handy divisions, I don't think that's necessary here. It'll need a bit of wording in the category (and maybe the template) to make sure that countries are put into the right categories though. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like creating {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} wasn't the best idea. I've gone through P-Z of {{footy-stub}} but haven't run into a single African club article. At present there are 8 of them. Conscious 07:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweden and Scotland, yes. Footystadium, I'm less keen on. Most stadia are multi-use, and we don't even use stadium-stub (although one of them might not be far off). Double-stubbing with struct-stub or one of its subcats would be of more use. Oh, and SouthAm is the more usual abbreviation we use here. Grutness...wha? 07:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The splitting seems to be completed. There are 9 {{Africa-footyclub-stub}}s. Maybe they should be returned to the parent category, and this template deleted? Conscious 13:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed feelings. If the template indeed can't reach the threshold, it's best to delete it and return the articles that use it to the parent category move the articles that use it to {{footyclub-stub}}, a daughter of {{footy-stub}} and a parent of the continental club stubs. Because I'm not an admin, I can't delete the template, but as the template's proposer and creator, I will take care of returning moving them. However, I think it's too early to tell. I think it's best to give this one a chance. Aecis 21:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Retail Stub

edit

How about a UK retail stub? Similar to the current retail one but with UK added to the name. Greaterlondoner 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-retail-stub}} could be useful... IIRC, though, we're dividing up retailers by type of business, rather than location, though I'm not 100% certain on that - anyone here involved in the retail-stub split care to comment? If we are dividing by location, this would definitely be a useful one. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

===Computer and video game stubs=== (now created as see below) There's a cvg-stub currently used by over 2000 articles (way over the recommended 800 limit), which needs to be split up some. Here's a few suggestions of mine:

  • Stub category for game-only/game series pages. This would differentiate them from the game character/developer/other related CVG pages.
  • Perhaps these should then be split up too, I'm thinking per decade, 80's games, 90's games, 00's games
  • Stub category for game-related articles only. This would include characters, mods, game developers, publishers, etc.

I've noticed a "Nintendo" stub too, which may work as an alternative, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about it...the reason I'm thinking a decade split would be best is because it's the least overlapping system (compared to say, by console). --ADeveria 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the "by system" method is that a lot of games would end up having a bunch of stub tags (say PS2, Xbox, PC) which would seem to me rather cluttered (can you imagine the Lemmings article, if it were a stub?). Admittedly, it would be more helpful for those seeking only to work on articles for these systems. I'm not sure which of these two factors is more important. Series works fine, but does not significantly reduce total amount of CVG stubs. --ADeveria 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's another alternative I forgot to mention...there might still be a few games that fall into more than one genre, but generally that system should work... In defense the decades, I would say that for at least 99% of all games you can find the year released online, Nintendo has lists on its site for all its games for all its systems on its site, with release dates...and I don't believe people are likely to look for games by the stub categories as much as they would the regular categories. --ADeveria 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I am applying stub templates to articles, I want the contents of the article to tell me what type to use. I don't want to have to go off and research it. --TheParanoidOne 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I guess Lectonar's suggestion is probably the best then, although unfortunately some CVG stubs may also require research on what genre to pick for it. --ADeveria 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this discussion, ADeveria might not be very happy with me: I moved many stubs about game developers from corp-stub to cvg-stub. So I propose a new category: cvg-corp-stub, for the game developers. And because I created a large part of the mess, I volunteer to clear it up and fill the new category. Aecis 10:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's alright, go with whatever's appropriate. :) I'm all for a cvg-corp-stub, sounds great. I'll help out with that if I find the time to. ADeveria 12:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cvg-corp-stub would be a good addition. Also perhaps ones for characters. cvg-char-stub or something. I think these two would be a great start at the very least. K1Bond007 16:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note cvg chars can already be put in {{fict-char-stub}}. If we create cvg-char-stub it should probably feed into that. DES (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to get things moving a little further here, I propose the following stubs:
I've tried to make the genre stubs as encompassing as possible, so shooter can be for 3rd person shooters as well as scrolling shooters, etc. I think "fantasy" might be a bit too vague for games, so I didn't add that. Please edit this list at will, however. ADeveria 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't racing cvg stubs simply be covered by sport-cvg-stub? Or would the category be too big and unwieldy? (I'v also edited down your list by one - you had platforrm-cvg-stub there twice!) Grutness...wha? 05:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness: the sport-cvg-stub is enough for now; let's just have a look at how it evolves; and I would (for the moment) refrain from the cvg-char-stub, becuase of the redundancies created with the fict-char-stub (see also my comments above: in sjort, many characters from games are also characters in books...) Lectonar 07:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, racing should be in sports (and thank you for removing the duplicate platform!). My argument for the cvg-char-stub would be that these specific stubs would help out those only interested in improving this particular type of fictional characters. But I can understand your point too, so I've removed it for now. There are two other genres I'm wondering if we should add, {{puzzle-cvg-stub}} and {{fighting-cvg-stub}}. Puzzle could be put under strategy perhaps, while fighting might be considered a sport... ADeveria 12:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many puzzle-cvg-stubs would there be ? (and I agree, fighting should, for the moment, go into sport-cvg-stub)...and I've come up with another one, hehe (being already a little older): adventure-cvg-stub (for the likes of Baphomets Curse or Monkey Island type games); but I really couldn't say if that genre is still going strong, being just the owner of an X-Box Lectonar 12:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure how many puzzle game stubs there are, so never mind that...I like the adventure game idea though, and not only because I'm a fan of those games myself...I believe it would also be good for "Action Adventure" games like Zelda, and any other modern 3D game that's not quite a shooter nor a platformer. Also, it could apply for ye olde text-based games too. ADeveria 13:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dost thou mean ye mighty olde infocom-dainties Lectonar 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not specifically, but probably, yeah. I know there's plenty of them made, and thus plenty of stubs will be made...ADeveria 22:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting this stub category out will definitely be a hell of a lot of work: there are currently 2,423 articles in the category... Aecis 18:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are no objections to the list of stubs mentioned above, and general approval continues, let's begin creating them starting Wednesday, 24 August (the required one week after suggestion). I've never made a stub or any other kind of template before, so help would be appreciated. :) ADeveria 13:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created about a dozen stub templates now, and about the same amount of "other" templates so I'm more than willing to help out with this "project". I'm not a gamer, so I'll focus on the sorting out the cvg-corp-stubs, but as I said, if you need help with the templates, I'm willing to help. Aecis 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove the {{rpg-cvg-stub}} from the list for now, as I get the feeling that these games could be thrown in with the {{adventure-cvg-stub}} too. If this category would get too big, we could add the rpg-cvg-stub. ADeveria 22:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By and large this looks like a pretty decent split. I'd argue though, as per my earlier suggestion, that {{online-game-stub}} would also be a sensible addition (being more a 'mode of play' than a genre, and not suffering especially from the 'stub escalation' problem). At least as regards "mmorgs" where 'onlineness' is an inherent part of game-play, as opposed to a CVG with an online mode/add-on. Alai 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the genre stubs have now been created, so anyone willing to can start adding to them. No images on the templates yet, however. If no one else beats me to it, I'll add the {{cvg-corp-stub}} shortly, too. And I personally have no problem with {{online-game-stub}}, your reasoning sounds good to me. ADeveria 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beat you to it ;) Aecis 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If {{online-game-stub}} is clearly restricted to games that are primarily/entirely online (MMORGs, MUDs, etc), I think it sounds like a good idea. --Mairi 18:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my conception. Perhaps slightly more specifically still, online computer role-playing games, if that fits the main category scheme a little more closely, and the stub numbers would suit that. Alai 04:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If it's going to be online role-playing games, perhaps call it online-rpg-stub? While it wouldn't quite match the main category system (which splits off MMORGs and MUD/MUCK/MU*s as seperate categories, without a general "online role-playing game" category), I'd be fine with a online role-playing game stub. --Mairi 00:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been around here for a long time. Anyway, why don't you consider moving the game developers and designers to some kind of cvg bio stub? --AllyUnion (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea; that would also cover the {{Video game music composer-stub}} up for deletion, with no real consensu so far...Lectonar 09:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate stub criterion

edit

I have proposed text, at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposed "depth of coverage" standard to try to captue in words the notion that what a stub is cannot be solely defined by a mere mechanical counting of words, sentances, or paragraphs. Please visit and comment. DES (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split sportbio-stub?

edit

Recently I've been writing biographies on sport shooters, some of which have been stubs, and I've marked them with sportbio-stub. However, I see that they completely drowned in Category:Sportspeople stubs, where A alone takes up an entire page. I'm pretty confident that nobody would argue against the need for some kind of split here, so the question is how. Should every subcategory in Category:Sportspeople by sport have its own stub type (which will ensure that sport writers who are experts in a single sport or two will find them, but might result in some very sparsely populated stub types), or should we try to find the most commonly bio-stubbed sports and separate them until the main stub type is not unwieldly anymore (which will probably mean much more work and that most sports will get their own stub types anyway)? -- Jao 12:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would lean toward splitting out the sports that have bunches of stubs in order to reduce the number in the catch-all stub category. With that being said, if there's a need for a sport shooter bio stub today that would help you, then propose it. (You might want to also consider creating a Wikiproject for sport shooters, if it doesn't already exist.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR there was a bit of a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting recently as to what would be a good topic to knock into shape now that the bio-stubs are under control... this would be a good possibility for that. There are probably quite a few sports that could do with separate stubs (not all of them, just - as F-o-P said - those with large numbers of stubs). Grutness...wha? 13:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I did some simple Google searches (site:en.wikipedia.org "This biographical article relating to sports is a stub." "Alpine skiers" etc.). This catches redirects as well, and is not up-to-date, but it should give a fairly good estimate of which categories have most stubs:

  1. Athletes (313)
  2. Badminton players (96)
  3. Boxers (67)
  4. Triathletes (66)
  5. Figure skaters (58)
  6. Archers (35)
  7. Gymnasts (35)
  8. Swimmers (33)
  9. Tennis players (30)
  10. Bodybuilders (15)
  11. Rowers (15)
  12. Alpine skiers (14)
  13. Cyclists (14)
  14. Speed skaters (13)
  15. Canoers (12)
  16. Judoka (12)

The rest have 8 or less. There are also some that should be sorted into existing stub types, but that has little to do with this discussion. Now, besides Athletes, the numbers are not very high -- it's just that the total number is. And so, to answer the question, yes, I would be helped by a sport shooter stub type, but not because there are so many sport shooter stubs -- just because there are so many unsorted sportspeople stubs.. If all the above were sorted out, we would have about a hundred sportbio-stubs left. -- Jao 08:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting off {{boxingbio-stub}}, {{badmintonbio-stub}}, {{skatingbio-stub}} (the latter for both speed and figure skating) would be very useful. Obviously {{athlete-stub}} looks like it would as well, but... which definition of "athlete" does this use? If it's the standard Commonwealth English definition, that's fine (i.e., what Americans call track and field athletes), but many of the articles you've counted may use the American definition, which covers a wide variety of sports. Personally, I'd suggest an {{athlete-stub}} (currently one exists as a redirect) as well (which could probably accommodate the triathletes as well), but I wouldn't expect it to get to 313 articles. As to the numbers for the other sports disciplines, many of the sportspeople are probably listed in the categories for their specific sports (tennis players in Category:Tennis stubs, for instance), which would boos numbers. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I'll officially propose these three further up the page in the October proposals section. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive8&oldid=1144847720"