Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

ARCHIVE 3

The following discussions are 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!

Contents

[edit] New stubs

[edit] Architecture stub

created as Template:arch-stub

See Buildings and structures suggestions, above. I propose an Arch-stub for architectural terms and building types and features. Currently there are just over 50 stubs in Category:Buildings and structures stubs that could take this new template. These articles range from the likes of Archivolt (architecture term) to Folly (building type), and Bedroom (building feature). If anyone can think of a better name for it, or description of it, I'd like to hear it! Grutness|hello? 11:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree I've run into a number of stubs that could have been categorized to this which I didn't categorize to the Struct stub. Courtland 00:30, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Update: I've created this stub as {{arch-stub}}. Grutness|hello? 07:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Band stubs

created as Template:band-stub

As a subcategory of Category:Musician stubs. Would it be enough of a distinction to pull out bands into a separate category? (They're not really biographical articles about musicians, so that categorization is somewhat ambiguous.) This could easily have several hundred articles (no, I am not going to list them all here). -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree; sounds reasonable .. and there's certainly >100 band stub wannabees about. Courtland 00:29, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Agree. --jag123 03:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and created Template:Band-stub (which is currently worded so that it can go for all musical groups; the category is Category:Musical group stubs). If you're bored, try weeding out the band articles from Category:Music stubs, where it seems folks have been putting them. (Yet another reason to create needed templates ASAP so we don't have to sort stubs twice...) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy stub

created as Template:fantasy-stub

Fantasy genre that is, in parallel to sf-stub. BlankVerse suggested this above (under #Cthulhu) and I think there are definitely more than enough articles to go into it. (I can think of at least a dozen that I've run into off the top of my head.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections after several days, I have decided to take the plunge and create the category. See Template:Fantasy-stub. I think it's fair to do this if there are no objections; it shouldn't take longer to create a category than it would to delete it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion stub

created as Template:fashion-stub

[edit] Clothing *Withdrawn*

for evaluation alongside Fashion perhaps a proposal then, with the clock running from now: Courtland 04:01, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

from Courtland 04:30, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Purse | Push-up bra | Homburg (hat) | Jersey (clothing) | Jockstrap

from Grutness|hello? 13:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bodice

from Courtland 00:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC) and a period after

Basque (clothing) | Arm warmers | Girdle | Tabi | Zori | Waraji | Clogs | Espadrilles
  • Scope Note proposal (Courtland 04:01, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC))
    • Inclusion: Generic pieces of clothing (e.g. skirt); certain accessories (e.g. purse, hat, tie, fanny-pack); fashion designers (e.g. Christian Dior); clothing brands (e.g. Ozone); clothing technology (e.g. sewing machine, Spandex); clothing trends (e.g. back-to-the-80's); burial "clothing" (e.g. shroud); uniforms (e.g. nurse's uniform)
    • Exclusion: specific named pieces of clothing (e.g. Shroud of Turin, Dr. Who's scarf); "dual use" technologies (e.g. velcro, Kevlar); jewelry and accessories that attach to clothing (e.g. necklace, medal, brooch); personal technology (e.g. worn computers, medical devices)
    • Consequences: no stub-category for clothing designers; drawing of items from Brands-stubs, Bio-stubs; possible need for a Jewelry-stub; rolling proposed Fashion-stub into Clothing-stub.

[edit] Fashion *Created*

* Purse (Courtland 04:48, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)) * Push-up bra (ibid.)

This should probably be a more general clothing-stub rather than fashion-stub. BlankVerse ∅ 13:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you're right ... I'll add a non-proposed heading here for evaluation of clothing alongside fashion Courtland 18:11, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Let's not forget the purpose of stubs here; flag articles that could be expanded. How much is there to say about purses, arm warmers, girdles, sneakers or bras? Short article does not equal stub and stubs don't replace categories. Not only do you not have anywhere near a 100 articles to create a new category, it's probably going to be extremely difficult to expand them. --jag123 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. I've noted in the title that this stub proposal is withdrawn as it does not meet minimum requirements .. unless there is objection from any others. Courtland 02:06, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

[edit] Medical treatment stubs

created as Template:treatment-stub

As a subcategory of Category:Medicine stubs. There are >800 medicine stubs right now and this could likely attract >100 stubs of that mass. There exists a standard category Category:Medical_treatments which, with its child-categories, would be the target for expanded articles.

Proposed stub name: Template:treatment-stub
Proposed stub category: Category:Medical_treatment_stubs
Proposed stub icon: picture of a pill?

Thanks for considering this. Courtland 06:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Does that include drugs? If so and excluding drugs, could the category have >100 stubs? If not, perhaps we should make a drug stub. --jag123 03:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking it to include drugs. I'm not sure without drugs if it would reach >100 stubs or not. I made a comment about deletion of a drugs_list category a bit ago which would clarify my thinking a bit; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Empty_Orphans_Detected_7_Jan_2005. My thinking about making a drug stub is that many treatments consist of multiple drugs or drugs + another treatment mode; also a significant number of drugs are combinations of pharmacological agents. Courtland 03:46, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Does anyone still plan to do this? If no one is opposed, I'll go ahead and create it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Aranel, but I should take care of it as I proposed it ... I'll make the requisite things momentarily and alter the section header here when I'm done. Courtland 00:40, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

FYI: there are already 132 articles in this stub category and about 50-75% of the Medicine stubs still need to be looked at for re-stubbing. Courtland 05:11, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

[edit] Geometry stubs

created as Template:geometry-stub

As a subcategory of Category:Math_stubs. There are >500 math stubs right now and this could likely attract >100 stubs of that mass. There exists a standard category Category:Geometry which , with its 28 sub-categories, would be the target for expanded articles.

Proposed stub name: Template:geometry-stub
Proposed stub category: Category:Geometry_stubs
Proposed stub icon: a squared circle? a compass? a canted grid?

Thanks for considering this. Courtland 06:56, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Agree. --jag123 03:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientist stubs

created as Template:scientist-stub

Special case here. I did no known about this page until after I made the stub so this is more like a notification.

Proposed stub name: Template:Scientist-stub
Proposed stub category: Category:Scientist_stub
Proposed stub icon: Einstein

It is a stub for biographical articles about scientists

Rationale: There are currently lot of articles marked stub or science stub that could be classified as Sientists stub. --LexCorp 01:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

many more examples at the category page.

Agree if possible; see my attempt to get rid of generic bio-stubs below. --YixilTesiphon 01:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


I agree too. In fact for the same reason LexCorp mentions, I was already using the scientis-stub to replace some old bio and unstubbed bios. (sorry). Askewmind 01:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Agree. I've already re-stubbed >20 bio-stubs to scientist-stubs (mostly found through Googling and link following). Courtland 03:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)


  • Good call, I agree. Since stub is already created, it should be used when possible. --jag123 03:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex stub

created as Template:sex-stub

[edit] Um...

Is it just my (admittedly warped) imagination, or do there seem to be a lot of "sexual practice" related stubs around? I'm not even sure what you'd call the stub category, since it ranges from Bondage mittens to child prostitution, via Chinese raping chair and Felching. Any thoughts? Name suggestions? Grutness|hello? 01:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other articles found so far (those marked with an asterisk may or may not qualify, depending on definition):

Cupcake party, Friend of Dorothy*, Compersion*, Erotic furniture, Frenum piercing, Fart fetishism, Fire play, Harpaxophilia. Grutness|hello? 01:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are lots of them and they become more prominant as more items are sorted out of general-stub. A stub category congruent with Category:Sexology would be useful, in fact ...

[edit] Sexology stubs *sex-stub exists*

carrying on from the "Um..." thread

As a top level category (child of Category:Stub_categories). There are lots of potential stubs for this category. Courtland 02:13, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Proposed stub name: Template:sex-stub
Proposed stub cateogry: Category:Sexology-stubs
Proposed stub icon: are you kidding; I'm not touchin' that one
Well, it already exists - hmm. Courtland 02:16, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Ah... useful. Shame it wasn't listed anywhere! Grutness|hello? 02:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weather stub

created as Template:climate-stub

not discussed before, there are numerous stubby weather articles without labels, or are labeled as sci-stub or geo-stubs

  • Wrong name Use meteo-stub (meteorology) over weather-stub. --Circeus 17:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody is going to remember meteo-stub. Either make it meteorology-stub or weather-stub. When a topic stub is created, it has to be easy to remember or it will never be used. BlankVerse ∅ 09:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I favour weather-stub. Okay, it may not be as precise a term as meteorology-stub, but it's a hell of a lot easier to both spell and type! Grutness|hello? 08:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm, what about met-stub? People talk about the met.office, so it shouldn't be too hard to remember... Grutness|hello? 08:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Someone has already put up Template:climate-stub, and entered it on Wikipedia:Stub_categories, associated with Category:Climatology_-_Meteorology_stubs. The template was created on 14 Feb by Vsmith ...(Courtland 17:38, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
Good template, awkward category name. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering a scope note for Template:climate-stub
    • To include: general climate phenomena, specific types of climate, seasons, climate zones, methods, personalities, associations, broadcasters (like The Weather Channel), specific named weather events.
    • To exclude: specific named events such as named hurricanes (though hurricane is a perfect topic), the 2004 Tsunami (though tsunami as a topic, yes), the "Blizzard of '98" (though blizzard conditions and factors leading to blizzards and their severity, yes).
    • Implications: no future "weatherman stub category" or "cloudforms stub category"; possible future "hurricanes by name" or "climate events by name", "climate events by year", etc. stub categories.
this type of detail of what's in, what's out, and what the implications are, might be helpful for more specific stub categorization with less inter-operator variability. Thoughts?
Courtland 03:29, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the weather category shouldn't include specific instances of weather? (If it starts to get over-crowded with hurricanes, we can create a separate sub-category for them, of course.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not particularly, except I was thinking of them as either a) historical events or b) geographical items ... however, it does make sense to start out with them generally included ... changed above. Courtland 04:10, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Phew - since I added at least one Hurricane stub to that category earlier today, I'm quite pleased! (I purged geo-term-stub of all weather related items and put them in the new category). Grutness|hello? 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub discussion

[edit] US State stubs

For some of the larger US States, there's enough information to warrant individual stub categories. I'm working on Template:Texas_stub right now (Currently has 18 pages, will be expanding). This will allow those who have lots of knowledge for an individual state (not uncommon) to focus there instead of sifting through oodles of United States stubs. --YixilTesiphon 02:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Not really a vote (although I sway towards yes), more a question - Are these state geo-stubs, or just basic state stubs. If the latter, do you intend to put individual state geo-stubs in there as well? There are certainly enough US-geo-stubs to subdivide them like this, but I suspect there are other types of articles (e.g., politics and bio) which would also go in there. In either case, it would be worth linking the new category (up to 50 categories?) into both the US-geo-stub and US-stub categories. Grutness|hello? 05:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I sway the No = Disagree direction. What I've been doing for place-related stubs is stubbing them to the available geography categories (at the country or region level) then categorizing the article to the finest geographical category available. For instance, see the stub Dauphin county library system for an example. This might put the stub in front of a local person who knows a lot about Dauphine County, PA, USA perhaps while knowing little at the state-level. Courtland 06:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
That's fine if you know all the local area categories for the US... personally I think it would be easier just to remember the names of the 50 states. Also, many articles will be about items that transcend local county boundaries while staying within a state: large geographic features, state politicians, and the like. It also saves people from having to look us all the county names in a state if they do know about the whole state. Most states will only have 100 stubs tops, at a guess - a reasonable number to look for for things to write - whereas US as a whole currently has just over 1000 geo-stubs - too many for a casual Wikipedian. The more I think about this, the more it seems like a good idea to me. Grutness|hello? 06:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote reversal to Agree with addition of 50 state stubs: Hmm. I see what you mean. The argument about needing to dive-deep to find things (either to read or work on) resonates as in my work life I do try hard to keep resources no more than 3 layers deep as a matter of usability. This is a problem that's been dealt with in the bioinformatics realm by the Gene Ontology Consortium by maintaining a fully resolved categorization and a "slim" categorization that is much shallower. The analogy here would be to stub to the state level and keep the stub category upon transition to full article status, while also categorizing to the most specific depth availble. Courtland 17:08, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Most of them are likely to be small localities and counties thus I say we resurrect a us-city-stub (Or something akin). If that doesn't eliminates most of the small towns little can be written about by outsiders anyway, then add maybe regional us-geo-stub. Please, DO NOT mix stub types, country-stubs are for country-related topics, state politicians goes into the future politician-stub. --Circeus 13:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely - but YixilTesiphon's original suggestion was for a Texas-stub, not a Texas-geo-stub, which suggests Texas-related articles of all sorts - including politicians, dealt with in the same way as Australian politicians, say, getting both a bio-stub and an Australia-stub. Grutness|hello?
  • Comment. I was independently working on something similar: Template:UT-stub. It would be used in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah and would tag all articles related to the state: geography, politicians, music, culture, arts, sites, buildings, history pages, historical figures, sports teams, and so on. Maybe we need a standard for state stubs? If I were to vote on this I would definately support, since having a stub category would help to collate all related stubs so we could work on our project better by knowing what needs to be expanded. I believe Texas is currently the only other active US state WikiProject. --[jon] [talk] 13:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The addition of the 50 US State stubs might have the consequence of intensifying any latent sentiments about US-centrism of the content. Should we also consider the addition of stubs for organizational units like the 23 Swiss cantons, 16 German states, 47 Japanese prefectures, and 7 (?) Australian territories? The notion of breaking the US into the 50 state categories has to do with a) volume of stubs available and b) this is the 2nd tier organizational unit generally recognized in the country (the 3rd tier being county, 4th tier township, 5th tier incorporated area I think). Courtland 17:16, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
    • Currently there are only three WikiProjects based on US states, two of which are active: Wikiproject Hawaii (least active), Wikiproject Texas, and Wikiproject Utah. As I said above, I would like this only to help collate stubs for the benefit of the community. I don't think we need 50 stub notices if there are not 50 communities. And yes, if someone wants to take the time to make projects for all the Swiss cantons and German states and Japanese prefectures and Australian territories which are active and devoted to increasing knowledge about those regions, then, why not? As for US-centrism, this is the English Wikipedia, and I guess a certain amount of US-(and British and Austrailian and New Zealander, and anywhere else where English is the primary language)centrism is natural. Honestly, this is the first time I have heard of this. I think the English Wikipedia has a wide range of articles on many varying subjects.--[jon] [talk] 18:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: The other problem is that there is starting to be some backlash to the huge increase in the number of topic stubs from Wikipedia editors who have not been involved in the Stub-sorting WikiProject (for example, see Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful where I've tried to moderate Netoholic's description and make it more accurate). For the stubs for US states, I would say that we probably should be cautious for the moment and only create stubs for states that have WikiProjects (like Utah, Texas, and Hawaii), or that have individuals who not only will commit to converting US stubs to state stubs, but to then start converting the state stubs to fuller articles. BlankVerse ∅ 18:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I don't think anyone's honestly expecting 50 - just taking out the few biggest (TX, CA, NY, plus the two others with projects) will help greatly. As for Americocentrism, there's already a Melbourne stub and a Canberra stub for Australia, and I've thought a Scotland stub would be useful before now. Grutness|hello? 18:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This all sounds great ... limiting the stub increase only to accomodate states with associated Projects. About the 'US-centrism' comment ... I prefaced it with 'might' and 'latent' because, no, I've not experienced a widespread sentiment but, yes, I've heard isolated grumbles here and there on particular topics. Perhaps I was a bit overly expansive in my 'mights' and 'could be's. Apologies. Courtland 01:25, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Addition: I don't think there's a need for 50 state stubs. How many South Dakota stubs are there really going to be? But then again there aren't too many experts on South Dakotan history, as opposed to, for example, Texas history.


  • Did someone say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii was the least active of the three state-based WikiProjects? Business at WikiProject Hawaii has been picking up within the past few days. Everyone should check out what we're doing. We rely on {{HI-stub}} to be able to quickly call up a list of articles we need to work on that's within our scope on Wikipedia. I think an independent Hawaii-stub is extremely valuable. Taking it away from us will slow things down a bit. --Gerald Farinas 04:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changed stubs

[edit] phys-stub

changed to Template:physics-stub

This is currently a redirect to the less ambiguous physics-stub. I have changed every page using phys-stub to physcis-stub and will be nominating it for deletion on WP:TFD so people won't use it. Any objections? --jag123 16:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Fantastic. Thanks. You could nominate it for "speedy-delete" as it's a structural change rather than a content change. Courtland 16:36, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
I don't think it's a criteria for speedy deletion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed stubs withdrawn

[edit] Brands

set by Courtland 01:51, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC) the following all added in the following hours

Craven A | Coppertone girl | Ace_Books | Ballantine Books | Bantam | Doubleday | Best_Foods | ChapStick | Eclipse (cigarettes) | Google_Alerts | Happy_Meal | Kiwi_(shoe_polish) | Linux_(washing_powder) | Magnum (icecream) | Marlboro_Man | Mr._Peanut | Nexus_Books | Orbit (gum) | Peters Ice Cream | Powerade
stub has been merged Courtland 03:04, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

from Courtland 19:12, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Parliament (cigarette) | Absolut Vodka | Airtel | Astroglide | Big League Chew | Bubble Yum | Carnation (trademark) | Chicken of the Sea | Cracker Jack | Esso | Popsicle | Old Spice | Melmac | Lonsdale (brand) | Lexan | Trix (cereal)

  • Disagree. Move to corp if you really need to stub it, but in most cases, there isn't much more to add. --jag123 21:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Withdrawn ... stub proposal does not meet minimum standards Courtland 02:07, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
Use {{Org-stub}}. --Circeus 13:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Labor unions

Well, I guess I've come down on the side of the Org-stub being on my 'please keep' list by proposing this one. I've found a number of labor union stubs just in the past few minutes, some that were not previously stubbed. Courtland 04:26, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

01 to 05 from Courtland 04:26, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

  1. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
  2. National Education Association
  3. American Federation of Teachers
  4. Drug, Hospital, and Health Care Employees Union
  5. American Federation of Government Employees
  • Disagree. Not enough articles, and not much potential to be expandable. National Education Association for instance, has member count, budget, president and some history. I'm not saying everything that can be said about this has been said, but what more do you want? This is article, although short, is not lacking. --jag123 21:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stub category proposal withdrawn - does not meet minimum standards Courtland 02:09, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)


Use {{Org-stub}}. --Circeus 13:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Stub_sorting_Criteria_Archive3_5e62.html"