Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proposed new stubs

The following discussion is archived. You may add to it as appropriate. However, to start a new discussion about a new stub proposed above, please discuss it under that stub's heading. Thanks!

I've went ahead and create the biochem stub. I definitely think we need a weather/meteorology. I don't really consider philosophy a science (not even social science). --jag123 16:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, philosophy was a science if you consider historically... all the Greeks who have put down some of our basic (our starting point) were all philosophers. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true (for western philosophy, not eastern) but it doesn't really mean anything. If Jesus had actually been a carpenter, I wouldn't put Christianity into woodworking. However, the "Is philosophy a science?" debate has been going on for ages and I doubt it'll be settled here, so I don't really care eitherway. --jag123 09:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Entertainment-stub: To hold things like Jim Rose Circus (which is actually a very interesting subject and deserves to be much larger and would be enhanced greatly by some photos). gK ¿?

Language-stub: I've recently run across several stubs that should have a language stub tag. This should go under "Culture", but I couldn't find a subcategory where it would fit. gK ¿? 20:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The edu-stub was based on the fact that all University and Colleges in the United States uses a ".edu" extension for websites. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, it would be a bad idea to use 'uni' for University and Colleges -- simply because 'uni' means one of something, and maybe confused with something else. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a proposed new warfare stub to handle stubs such as Rules of Prize Warfare. BlankVerse 02:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Microbiology stubs. I have added some ideas for microbiology stubs, this could be just microbiology, but I feel splitting into diciplines would be better. There are hundreds of articles on individual species, genera and orders that are currently all lumped in to biosci-stub. Onco p53 22:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about using the five kingdoms of Carolus Linnaeus's Scientific classification system: Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protista, Archaeobacteria, and Eubacteria? Andrew Watt 05:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In theory, the purpose behind sorting stubs would seem to be the creation of categories/lists where eager Wikipedia contributors can find articles in need of their contributions, in their subject areas. Yes? If we sort stubs into alien categories, no one is going to know how to look for them. Also, do we want to suggest some minimum length at which point any stub-tag, in any category, should perhaps be removed? Andrew Watt 05:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will be creating the following new stubs (very soon), as a subset of biology:

• Microorganism (for any other microorganism which doesn't fit in fungi or bacteria)
  • Mycology (for all fungi related stubs)
  • Bacteria (for all bacteria related stubs)

This will remove several articles of organisms which don't fit into plant or animal, out of biology. If someone decides to change the hierarchy/structure/naming of the stubs in the future, I don't mind going back and changing all of those affected, but for the present, this can't hurt. --jag123 06:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with that, I guess we can use bacteria in the broad sense including the Archaea Onco p53 06:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After going through the biology articles, I've realised there are very little stubs that fit into fungi or microorganism/microbiology, and a stub is not necessary. Any suggestions as to what should be done with these living organisms? Simply keep them in biology? --jag123 10:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have though about a generic {{life-stub}} category for living organisms (Which I believe to be currently out of place under bio-stubs). Also, until there is some form of contribution or objection, I will at the end of the monh, be very bold and start reorganizing the stubs myself. --Circeus 13:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean put everything under Animal, plants and bacteria into one life-stub? If you do, I object. On the other hand, if you mean recategorize Animal, Plant and Bacteria under life-stub, and place any other living thing in life, then I have no complaints. Why do you consider living organisms to be out of place under biology? --jag123 22:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<q>if you mean recategorize Animal, Plant and Bacteria under life-stub, and place any other living thing in life</q> Just that. I think they're out of place because I don't expect to have to go into science->bio to find them. (I might duplicate them, though, like substance-stub)--Circeus 23:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you wouldn't expect to find living things under biology, the science of living organisms, but so long as the current categorisation is left intact (ie: all animals under an animal stub, plants under plant stub) then it's not really a big deal what main category they sit under. If that's what is decided, then the fungi and microorganism stub I made should be delete since there's not enough articles unless all of the fungi related articles are hidden somewhere else. Who propose the mycology stub anyway, and why? --jag123 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh there will be plenty of fungi-stubs when I start creating tax boxes for all the genera / order ect.. (Where possible, fungi taxonomy is nowhere near as clear cut as bacteria). Onco p53 14:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about micro-stub? Should that be kept or deleted?--jag123 22:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on proposed stub deletions

Please put any proposed stub deletions up above, but put your comments here.

Agree with van->auto, pub->struct and bio into separate fields. I think Disney is popular enough to have it's own stub. Not much in City now but it's brand new. I'd wait a while. By the way, why is Knot a stub in math? Is that a new field or a mistake? --jag123 16:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) There is currently only a single stub in the Disney-stub category. If there is no corresponding WikiProject to support the stub, it should be eliminated. 2) The city stub should not have been created since most cities should be put into appropriate geographic categories (for example, stubby US cities into US-geo-stub), or when there is no geographic subcategory, then listed as a geo-stub. 3) The are mathematical implications to knots and Knot theory is a branch of topology so the knot-stub should be listed as both a subset of math-stubs and as a miscellaneous stub. gK ¿? 17:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are always going to be people who don't easily fit into the various people stubs (musicians, scientists, etc.) so the bio-stub should stay and the various people stubs should be a subset of the bio-stub. There are, however, several new people stubs that probably should be created, such as a politician-stub. gK ¿? 17:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? I just don't see any need for the bio-stub, and I don't believe the argument that there are people who don't easily fit into people stubs. Perhaps you can change my mind. If you propose to eventually move the responsibility for stub maintenance to WikiProjects, then eliminating (or at least discouraging) the use of the bio-stub and instead using discipline-specific categories (like the regional geo stub) will help move this project along. --Viriditas | Talk 10:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the examples that I can think immediately would be taken care of by some of the additions that I've suggested. For example, a Chilean President would currently fit (uneasily) in either the political or government stubs, but both a politician-stub and S-Amer-stub have been proposed. There are some people, however, that don't really fit well in any category or straddles multiple categories, and the bio-stub might still be the best default--for example, the eccentric French transgendered diplomat Chevalier d'Eon (a France-stub, for example, is probably not the best choice since he spent his most colorful years in England). Yes, it is best to discourage the bio-stub, but I think that is mostly because a stubby biographical article will be more likely found and improved when they are in a topic stubs. gK ¿? 23:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Adding the bio-stub isn't helping the expansion of the article. And, if some people don't fit well in any category, we should use the bio-cat as a last resort. --Viriditas | Talk 11:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is an article that I just found today: Margaret Tyndal Winthrop. It probably has almost all of the info that an encyclopedia should have on her (and more), so the stub message should probably be removed. If the article was still a stub, however, what would you label her with instead of a bio-stub? gK ¿? 08:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting an example. The article in question is less of a biography and more of a political genealogy, so I would label it as a poli-stub. --Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, your point is valid, but as I stated below, do you truly want to create a stub for every job profession? I certainly do not think so. Suppose there was a garbage person who became really famous for, let's say, saving an entire building from a terrorist bomb and died from the bomb. What would you mark this person as? Hero-stub? The thing I am trying to see is that we create only stubs of useful value, stubs that really are going to be used. I can clearly see how you wish to address the fact that by not classifying people under their approprate fields, bio-stubs won't be expanded. My point is that the bio-stub should remain as a point where they can be re-sorted. Stubs will be always recategorized based on need, but this doesn't mean we need to get rid of the stub. This is like saying that we need to get rid of the Sci-stub template and create a stub for every obsecure field of science. In the event that someone creates a bot, for example, that creates stub articles for famous people who's entry is not listed in the Wikipedia, they may be able to use one stub for the job. We would certainly want them to avoid using the stub template, we would optimally like them to pick one of a job profession of the person, but we can't expect their bot to be smart enough to do so. Certainly, our project would be a lot easier if they had a feature to allow us to somehow reference the main category along with our own stub category or allow a unionized view if we use two stubs... Here's another example: France A. Córdova. This is an article I created, because this article talks about my University's chancellor. My University is part of the University of California so it is notable, and the chancellor of a notable school certainly deserves an article. Especially when she was the chief scientist at NASA. (See references.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If they were required, I would certainly create stubs for job professions, i.e. more than 10 articles in need of a stub; there really aren't that many professions, as many are just subsets. The sanitaiton engineering example might be more accurately categorized as a regional bio (I notice that canada-bio-stub is in use). The article about France A. Córdova seems to be about her role in academia, (perhaps we can get WikiProject Academics involved) so an edu-stub might be appropriate, or perhaps even a us-bio-stub, since there is no academic-stub at this time. But if she is more notable for her work in astrophysics, then a stub in that field would be an apt choice. In any case, if we are going to pass responsibility of stubs to WikiProjects then we are going to need to start moving the bio stubs into more specific categories and at the same time, start discouraging top-level bio-categorization. Sorting all the American bio-stubs into us-bio-stub is a step in the right direction. What's the status on getting some help from WikiProject Biography? Are they willing to help out? --Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are only three users in that project... doesn't seem enough to handle all the bio-stubs... -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the single stub in the Disney category and it's not new, so may as well delete. Ditto for city. Thanks for the tidbit on Knot theory in math. The scientist/writer/politician/etc stubs, do you think they should be as sub categories of the bio-stub (my preference) or under each respective field (science, literature, etc)? --jag123 23:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look at how the existing topic stubs are currently categorized. Category:Musician stubs, for example, is a child of Category:People stubs, Category:Music stubs and Category:Musicians. There is no problem having the scientist-stub under the Category:People stubs and Category:Science stubs, as well as Category:Science.

What did you mean by there is no Wikiproject to support the stub? Is there a WikiProject for the other stubs? --jag123 23:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have a connection between stubs and WikiProjects, but stubs seems to be better looked after if there is a corresponding WikiProject. For example, there is a template:anime-stub and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. There probably should be a SF-stub, but without a matching WikiProject, it is much less likely that the SF-stubs will be developed into full articles.

The other side of the coin, and something that I've suggested, is that we should try to look for WikiProjects and Regional Notice Boards that don't currently have topic stubs associated with them. We should, in consultation with those groups, try to create some new topic stubs that they should find useful. gK ¿? 02:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep disney-stub, and bio-stub. Redirect city-stub to geo-stub, (avoids recreation). Disney stub is new, and Disney is big enough to warrant its own stub. Bio-stub should be kept for the same reason stub is still kept. You actually want to create a stub for every profession in the world? Don't you think that's a bit excessive? -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete disney-stub and recategorize articles ... unless the current 23 articles can be expanded past 100. I'd suggest a time-limit on that of 7 to 14 days. Courtland 12:45, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a ton of Disney movies that are listed under film-stub. This strikes me as precisely the sort of category that a dedicated fan might find useful. I'll see what I can find. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: Without any actual effort, I managed to increase the category to 75 articles. I would say that there are definitely enough for this to be a viable category. (Category:Movie stubs is enormous and needs to be divided further rather than having other categories merged into it.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)