Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/December
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Proposals, December 2006
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the December archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.
[edit] NEW PROPOSALS
[edit] Hungary-geo-stub split
Category:Hungary geography stubs is at exactly 800 stubs. Is this perhaps a good time to split it? Hungary consists of 7 regions, divided in 20 counties. Several of the counties reach 60 stubs, and all of the rest have enough potential to reach that limit in the future (all of them except Budapest have a large number of towns and villages that do not have an article yet). The relevant stub counts are:
- Southern Great Plain
- Bács-Kiskun - 118 stubs => Category:Bács-Kiskun geography stubs
- Békés - 72 stubs => Category:Békés county geography stubs
- Csongrád - 57 stubs => Category:Csongrád county geography stubs
- Northern Great Plain
- Hajdú-Bihar - 75 stubs => Category:Hajdú-Bihar geography stubs
- Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok - 74 stubs => Category:Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok geography stubs
- Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg - 194 stubs => Category:Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg geography stubs
- Central Transdanubia - 58 stubs in total
- Fejér - 21 stubs
- Komárom-Esztergom - 5 stubs
- Veszprém - 32 stubs
I propose creating stubcats for the first 6 counties, and possibly creating one for the Central Transdanubia region, Category:Central Transdanubia geography stubs. The other counties and regions have less than 40 stubs each.
I've already created the corresponding (county-level) stub templates, as they were useful in counting the stubs. They are named {{Bacs-geo-stub}}, {{Bekes-geo-stub}} etc. using the unaccented shortened names of the counties; I don't object to redirs at the full names {{BácsKiskun-geo-stub}} etc. -- Eugène van der Pijll 13:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't see that one coming... Nice job, strong support. Alai 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:US Marine Corps Personnel
The tempate already exists and has over 100 articles linked to it so this would be a viable split from the large US-mil-bio-stub. Waacstats 11:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support, but as Cat:United States Marine Corps personnel, please. Alai 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canada-footy-bio-stub
- {{Canada-footy-bio-stub}}, Category:Canadian soccer biography stubs
Just subcat Category:Canadian sportspeople stubs. Matthew_hk tc 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sensible scope; any idea about likely size? Alai 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Various novel stubs
- {{1900s-novel-stub}}, Category:1900s novel stubs - assigned articles 34
- {{1910s-novel-stub}}, Category:1910s novel stubs - assigned articles 39
- {{1920s-novel-stub}}, Category:1920s novel stubs - assigned articles 60
- {{1940s-novel-stub}}, Category:1940s novel stubs - assigned articles 67 (from and earlier create)
Having just gone through the recommended procedure mentioned in the "old business" below the counts assigned to the templates are as recorded above. Even I was a little surprise how many there were. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- '20s is fine (as is the existing 40s), others are better kept upmerged for now. (Also, any chance of making these look like standard stub templates, in the manner of the WP:STUB model?) Alai 15:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Portugese sports venue stubs
As is to prove that you really can't keep a good stub type down, the euro-sports-venues are oversized again. Pending a fresh db dump, best I can come up with is this. OTOH, if said dump reveals some other country has leapt ahead, I shall in fickle fashion switch my attentions to that... Alai 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Was already proposed and aproved along with Greece-sports-venue-stub and is listed at WP:WSS/T.--Carabinieri 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Architectural history stubs
The arch-stubs are now oversized, and of the several top-level subcats (and subtrees thereof) that appear to pass threshold, this looks the most potentially coherent (and has 90 candidates). (Probably would need to be squinted at by hand, all the same.) Alai 01:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Italian nobility stubs
After those last two damp squibs, I'm happy to report this one seems super-viable at 109. (There's almost as many under-sorted French.) Parent is oversized. Alai 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Zhejiang geography stubs
The "Mainland China" geos are bang on 800, and about to be slightly oversized when they become the PRC-geos. Largest first-level division remaining seems to be this, at 46, but there's also some undercategorisation. Alai 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah - China's probably close to being looked at for a serious by-province split (which will also entail tidying up what is meant by Tibet, BTW). Support. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Serious, as opposed to...? Alai 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- What I mean is, considering making all provincial templates and upmerging whatever needs to be, rather than doing this one region at a time. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- So far as I'm aware, that latter'd be "all the ones I haven't proposed" -- never mind how borderline this one is. (Much as I slack off on actual creations, I try to report all viable splits when making proposals of this sort.) Templatising would certainly be fine by me, or if anyone wants to tackle the uncatting, I can furnish a list of those lacking a provincial-level permcat, which might put some others "over the top". Alai 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough - just this one will do for now then, though I suspect we should keep a close eye on it for further splits. Does province sound the most sensible method of doing that as and when? And if so how many are we looking at? Grutness...wha? 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect we'll know about it soon enough, as it'll doubtless be oversized again presently. There's 33 first-level entities total, and 22 provinces qua provinces. If there's any more broadly-defined "regions" (aside from purely historical or very hand-wavey ones), I don't know about them (to be fair, provinces are already pretty big places in the scheme of things.) I suppose one could look at lumping the SARs into one category, the first-order municipalities into another, and the autonomous regions into a third, but that seems a little weak. Alai 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- What I mean is, considering making all provincial templates and upmerging whatever needs to be, rather than doing this one region at a time. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Serious, as opposed to...? Alai 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've found one means of grouping the provinces: the PRC is divided up into seven (huge) "military districts". This would solve the the size issue for the foreseeable future by coup de main, but seems rather artificial, unless it also sees some significant civil use. Alai 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Lake Macquarie geography stubs
The NSW geos are oversized yet again, this is the best I can come up with, at a disgracefully small 38, and it's not clear that there's much in the way of undercatting. (Well, if I want to get a rise out of Grutness, I could propose Cat:New South Wales river stubs, but that's hardly any larger at 40.) However, there's LM WPJ: I know, because they've left their category in the main category tree, rather untidily. That could conceivably give us the excuse, though their actual scope would be a little wider than this. Alai 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hrmph. Sure there isn't some undersorting of the Sydney ones? NSW's tricky - it seems to be divided into a couple of hundred shires, with nothing between that and the state level. Don't really like the idea of this split, but I can't think of any real alternative... Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- If there's much unsorting (or uncatting) to that or any other existing type, it wasn't evident when I crunched the numbers. There's bound to be some, of course. Alai 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did find this page on the official New South Wales website that divides NSW up into 14 regions. How much use they see, I don't know, but Lake Macquarie City would be in the Hunter region which also consists of Cessnock City, Dungog Shire, Gloucester Shire, Great Lakes, Maitland City, Muswellbrook Shire, Newcastle City, Port Stephens, Singleton Shire, and Upper Hunter Shire. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Lunar geological feature stubs or Cat:Lunar crater stubs
Either of these would have over 600 stubs, with a tiny difference in membership (so one or the other, not both); the parent is, rather suddenly, over 1100. (Many of these are probably just undercategorised, so I'd personally favour the craters type, lest we end up simply moving almost all of these from this type to a new one.) Alai 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah - I'd go for the geographical features (more technically selenographic, but I don't think many people really use that term these days). I think that beyond earth is one place we can split more readily by type of feature, so if this gets too big cuting the craters out as a separate subcat may be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- At any rate, the permcat doesn't use that term. My concern about the more inclusive type is that once categorisation is complete, they'd probably be almost all those. Come to that, it may not be far off being true for the craters, either, but one can at least hope... Alai 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amusement park stubs
On WP:NPP patrol I ran across Action City. In Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Leisure could only find {{Ride-stub}}. Oddly and unexpectedly, this stub generates " This article about an amusement park, amusement ride, or roller coaster is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The stub should programmed for rides and parks should be separate. Several unstubbed articles exist in Category:Amusement parks. TonyTheTiger 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem all that odd or unexpected to me, but a split seems plausible, and probably of benefit as the "merged" type is getting to be about 2 1/2 listings pages. In the (I'm betting not unlikely) event that this gets approved, and not populated, worth an upmerged {{amusement-park-stub}} template at the least. Alai 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support - as long as the usual caveat about double-stubbing with the local geo-stub applies. Grutness...wha? 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{Marsu-stub}} | Category:Marsupial stubs
In the first 50 mammal stubs, 14 are about marsupials. I think they should get their own stub template/category. Eli Falk 08:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You need 60 in total at least... Monni 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I only checked the first 50 stubs out of approx. 400. Even if that is relatively high, I think that there's got to be more than 60.
- In addition, the mammal stubs category and its sub-categories keep getting fuller. In July, when I proposed Category:Carnivora stubs and Category:Even-toed Ungulate stubs, there were approx. 700 articles in the mammal stub category. Now there are 971 articles in the mammal stub category and it's newer sub-categories, so even if there's just under 60 now, there will probably be 60 soon. Eli Falk 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- May I ask what's wrong with {{marsupial-stub}}? It's not all that long and certainly much clearer than marsu (which, as you'll note, doesn't exist). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support, but strongly agree with Amalas's point about the template name. Clarity is worth the four extra characters... Alai 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not only that, but marsu is Finnish for guinea pig! Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support template as per Amalas. Monni 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Whee - that was quick - whatever happened to waiting five days? Grutness...wha? 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not that I support such action, but now that it was done early there are 147 articles in that category, which proves me right about that there is enough. Eli Falk 10:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1970 and prior MLB pitchers
I've been working on stub sorting {{Baseball-pitcher-stub}} into the 1980's , 1990's, and 2000's buckets, and it occurred to me that we probably should have a "1970 and before" stub as well. Otherwise, the stub sorters will be checking the same pitchers over and over and over to see if they belong in the three existing sub-stubs. Kathy A. 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not how we've done similar type splits in the past, and it will mean that when it's time to add {{1970s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}, we'll need to restub all of the semi-sorted stubs into the new 1970s stub and a 1960s and before stubs. I could see adding addition templates that would feed into Cat:Baseball pitcher stubs until there are enough for their own separate category, but not a temporary semi-sorted category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's the right axis, but if it's the "right now" axis, and will get it off the long-standing-oversized list... For the reasons CW mentions, ideally create per-decade templates, even if they feed into the same "bucket". Alai 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good points. My editing experience is intermediate, and I hadn't previously run across the idea of creating multiple templates that feed into the same stub. If someone could direct me to where I can learn how to do that, I'd be happy to work on the project. It would help me feel like I'm not spinning my wheels in the pitcher stubs, and make life much, much easier for when new stubs are created. Kathy A. 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, a "central resource" on this would be sensible, and doesn't really exist. I might try to do some off-line redrafting of parts of WP:STUB while I'm digesting my Christmas pud... But in this case, basically just make multiple copies of {{1980s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}, changing the occurrences of "1980s" as appropriate, but giving them all the same category; say, [[Category:Pre-1980 baseball pitcher stubs]] (or whatever there's a consensus for this to be called). (It's I think a good idea to top-sort the templates for upmerged types, so that it's immediately apparent from looking at the beginning of the category which exist, but this code already does that.) If you run into any difficulties, just contact me, I'll be happy to help, or likewise any of the "usual suspects" for stub template creation, for whom I'm sure the same is true. Alai 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good points. My editing experience is intermediate, and I hadn't previously run across the idea of creating multiple templates that feed into the same stub. If someone could direct me to where I can learn how to do that, I'd be happy to work on the project. It would help me feel like I'm not spinning my wheels in the pitcher stubs, and make life much, much easier for when new stubs are created. Kathy A. 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Again, thanks! I think I've got it done now. (I'd welcome anyone to look it over and double check.)Kathy A. 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That's it, though I think the lengthy list of templates on the category page is a bit redundant, given the aforementioned top-sorting of the templates themselves, and takes up a lot of space (leading to the dreaded "where did the articles go?" syndrome). Personally I'd remove that, and just make reference to their general form and range. Alai 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] {{US-gov-bio-stub}}
This would be in parallel to the existing {{UK-gov-bio-stub}}. It should easily reach 60 and should take about one third to one half of the stubs I'm having to leave in Cat:American people stubs for now as I sort through them. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This doesn't exist yet? Strong support. Crystallina 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you're sorting the US-bios, I'll just say strong support and have the good grace not to mention the delicate "category name" issue (oops!). Alai 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I realize there's already a UK version of this but wouldn't this be the same thing as {{US-poli-bio-stub}} minus the political scientists.--Carabinieri 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a point, there's something of an asymmetry between the two. I don't think the scopes are the same, though; this would cover supposedly-non-political officials, while the other covers non-office-holders connected with politics. I suppose a difference between the UK and the US is that in the latter, a much larger number of officials are explicitly political... Alai 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I've been using {{US-poli-bio-stub}} for spouses, siblings, parents, children, and other relatives of U.S. politicians who are notable primarily because of their relative. I suppose I could have sorted Billy Carter with {{US-business-bio-stub}} and {{beer-stub}} instead of {{US-poli-bio-stub}}, but it just didn't seem right. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another NZ-geo subcat
No sooner has Cat:Wellington Region geography stubs been created than the Manawatu-Wanganui Region manages to scrape to 60 stubs. Therefoire, I propose that the {{ManawatuWanganui-geo-stub}} template be assigned its very own Cat:Manawatu-Wanganui geography stubs. And before you ask, no the permcat doesn't have "Region" on the end - the only reason Wellington does is to differentiate it from the city. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- PS - three other regions (Marlborough, Bay of Plenty, and Northland) have between 40 and 50 geo-stubs, so it may not be too long before they also reach a reasonable splitting level, especially since I'm still hunting through the NZ geo permcats. Grutness...wha? 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old business
[edit] Record label stubs by country
OK, seems I've jumped the gun on this one already. I wasn't even aware that this needed a discussion, as believed stubs were the same as categories. Apologies for this... Anyway, I've already added some new stub categories in the record labels stubs [1] category.
Originally this had 3 stubs - UK, USA and Canada. Everything else went into the big melting pot of just being a record-label-stub, regardless of country. I started to create new stub cats. for other countries, as and when I found a record label stub from that country. Some are more populated that others (compare France, Germany and Australia with Cuba, Iceland and Poland, for example).
I think having the stubs broken down for this category at country level will help to improve and expand the articles within each category. For example, a keen Wikipedian from Iceland would be more likely to stumble across an Iceland specific record label stub, than finding the article buried in the general record-label-stub.
Obviously as time goes on, some of the underpopulated stub categories will gain entries too. Again, apologies for not knowing about something I didn't know about in the first place! Lugnuts 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- oppose any that don't currently have 50 stubs, support any that do. There are already plans underway for continent-wide splits, which would keep the size of the categories to far more reasonable levels. See also WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- upmerge to continent level unless viable on own... Monni 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like Cat:Oceania record label stubs will reach fairly sensible levels (mainly Australian, admittedly), and Cat:Asian record label stubs will be getting there (mainly Japanese, with a few thrown in from China and the extreme other end of the landmass). All the upmerged templates would look it look fuller, of course... The Americas look a bit thin, depending on how much weighting one gives to the two existing NorthAm types, which would become subcats. Alai 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Films By Country stub needed in (2.2.5.3 By Country): {{South-Africa-film-stub}} (South African Films)
[edit] Energy stubs:Proposed United states naval reactors stub
in the energy stubs there is a group of 26 nuclear reactors which could be moved into a seperate category Inwind 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Too small for a stub type, but a {{nuclear-energy-stub}} → Cat:Nuclear energy stubs → Cat:Nuclear energy → (Cat:Nuclear technology & Cat:Energy) should be viable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer using power instead of energy {{nuclear-power-stub}} → Cat:Nuclear power stubs → Cat:Nuclear power → (Cat:Nuclear technology & Cat:Energy) Inwind 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
- I see we're db-authoring stuff before the discussion period's even finished. I've sped the first cat, and agree that the permcat-consistent alternative is preferable, but I suggest keeping the {{nuclear-energy-stub}} redirect for reasons of symmetry with the parent's template, and thus hopefully avoiding needless confusion and second-guessing. Alai 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Album Project:Proposed alt-country-album-stub
[edit] Cat:Tanzanian politician stubs
[edit] Cat:European rapid transit stubs
[edit] Asian American WikiProject stubs
I'm in Wikipedia:WikiProjectAsianAmericans and would like some suggestions as to a stub template. I'm not sure that a stub template will do it all, but either way, it should be possible. Possibly {{Asian-American-stub}} or {{AsianAmerican-stub}}. Approval? Wait... that was a stub template. Never mind.
- But as you mention it... This has the same problems as previously-discussed types. If this is for "people and matters notable in connection with Asian American affairs", it's OK, as long as that's clear, and is stuck to. If it's for "sorting people by ethnicity who are notable for assorted things unrelated to their ethnicity", that's a problem. What you may ultimately want is a talk-page template, which you're free to scope as you wish (accordining to primary notability or otherwise). Alai 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch actor stubs
[edit] New Mexico Broadcasting stubs
[edit] Major breakdown on Military personnel stubs
This category is definitely undersorted, however, it is near 800. Currently, no continents have their individual stubs and for this reason, I am proposing {{Africa-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Euro-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Asia-mil-bio-stub}}, {{NorthAm-mil-bio-stub}}, {{SouthAm-mil-bio-stub}} and their corresponding categories.--Thomas.macmillan 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unsorted, and uncategorised too; only 322 are in a "by nationality" category. (One of these days I'm going to create and populate a "people without a nationality category" maint-cat, and it'll be a doozy...) So pending that, your plan seems a good one. Alai 03:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget {{Oceania-mil-bio-stub}}, even if only as an upmerged template! :) Grutness...wha? 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- And NorhtAm-mil-bio-stub might not be a great idea, since the US and Canada each already have their own mil-bio-stubs.--Carabinieri 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think, if we include the Caribbean and Central America in it, it can be useful. Perhaps we can just upmerge it at first.--Thomas.macmillan 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is kind of related to this subject. I recently just went through and created pages for most of the Army and Air Force Korean War Medal of Honor recipients (Navy and Marines had already been done), and I've noticed that under "United States military personnel stubs" there is a "United States Air Force personnel stubs", "United States Coast Guard personnel stubs" and "United States Navy personnel stubs". The Army folks are all categorized under the parent stub, and I think it might be better 'categorization' to to break them out under their own stub, "Cat:United States Army personnel stubs".wbfergus 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- A bit late but while looking through some of the archives it appears that Euro- and Asia- have already been approved (Archive 26 if anyone is interested) so can probably be speedied. Waacstats 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- WB, actually that's already been proposed, here; I've just been goldbricking on actually doing it, as it's slipped off the "oversized and urgent" list. (There was also some discussion on how many subcats, and what they should be called.) So feel free to go ahead... Alai 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I've created a category Cat:United States Army personnel stubs and a template {{US-army-bio-stub}}. Hopefully I created them correctly. I've also gone through the 76 Army Medal of Honor recipients for the Korean War and added the template to them. wbfergus 11:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- WB, actually that's already been proposed, here; I've just been goldbricking on actually doing it, as it's slipped off the "oversized and urgent" list. (There was also some discussion on how many subcats, and what they should be called.) So feel free to go ahead... Alai 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- A bit late but while looking through some of the archives it appears that Euro- and Asia- have already been approved (Archive 26 if anyone is interested) so can probably be speedied. Waacstats 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is kind of related to this subject. I recently just went through and created pages for most of the Army and Air Force Korean War Medal of Honor recipients (Navy and Marines had already been done), and I've noticed that under "United States military personnel stubs" there is a "United States Air Force personnel stubs", "United States Coast Guard personnel stubs" and "United States Navy personnel stubs". The Army folks are all categorized under the parent stub, and I think it might be better 'categorization' to to break them out under their own stub, "Cat:United States Army personnel stubs".wbfergus 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{Sikh-bio-stub}}, Category:Sikh people stubs
[edit] {{Medal-stub}}, Category:Orders and medals stubs
Wikipedia's coverage of national Orders, decorations, and medals is distinctly patchy. Apart from the most famous awards, most articles are stubs. Just to take two categories at random, Category:Canadian orders and decorations and Category:Orders and decorations of Australia contain few, if any, reasonably-sized articles. A Wikiproject is just about to be started to try and remedy this gap in coverage, so it would be a good idea for it to have its own stub category.
Xdamrtalk 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- We already have an {{award-stub}}. Were you thinking of splitting that? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, {{award-stub}} covers everything from academic prizes to sporting prizes, medals for humanitarianism to medals for broadcasting - with goodness knows what else in between! This stub would be solely for orders and medals, civil or military, which are part of national honours systems.
- I like the idea but not the names. the category should be Category:Order and decoration stubs to match the non-stub parent Category:Orders and decorations, and when I see {{medal-stub}}, the first thing that comes to mind for me is Olympic and other sporting medals, not national honors. Perhaps {{order-stub}} would do? Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can see the difficulty with {{medal-stub}}. As far as a new name goes, {{order-stub}} sounds good. {{odm-stub}} is another alternative that springs to mind (ODM = Orders, decorations, and medals) but does it sound too cryptic? Perhaps call the stub category Category:Order, decoration, and medal stubs to match it up. For some reason, dropping the plurals from the category name doesn't quite sound right - but if it conforms to established practice then we can do it that way.
-
-
- Definitely cryptic. What about separate {{mil-medal-stub}}/{{order-stub}}/{{decoration-stub}} templates and/or redirects, all feeding into the same category? Alai 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, I don't know. It doesn't really sound terribly more cryptic than something like {{Cvg-char-stub}} (computer and video game characters), surely?
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think redirects would be best choice. I don't like initialisms much... Monni 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think three stubs is unnecessary duplication. As far as a single, unified name goes, I've tried to come up with a few new alternatives. The best I've been able to come up with is {{orders-medals-stub}}. How is this?
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm not talking about three separate stub types, just covering all the obvious bases in terms of template names. But I'm OK with your latter suggestion, too. Alai 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- oppose new proposition Monni 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What exactly do you mean?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I prefer {{medal-stub}} as this would cover some of the exonumia that was dis-approved as a stub proposal last month. --JAYMEDINC 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't, what does non-legal tender transaction tokens have to do with orders and decorations? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. But it does point out how medal by itself is just too ambiguous for medal-stub to be used as a template for this stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- According to the exonumia article, medals are exonumia. All I was saying is that some types of medals that I would've included in the ill-fated exonumia stub would do just fine in the proposed medal stub. A better fit than in the {{coin-stub}} that was approved instead. I also appologize because I didn't come in here to debate the definition of exonumia and what fits in there. I just came to give my support for the proposed medal stub.--JAYMEDINC 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't, what does non-legal tender transaction tokens have to do with orders and decorations? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. But it does point out how medal by itself is just too ambiguous for medal-stub to be used as a template for this stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer {{medal-stub}} as this would cover some of the exonumia that was dis-approved as a stub proposal last month. --JAYMEDINC 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-