Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] {{mining-stub}}

We may need this new stub class, re digging holes, not re laying landmines. Anthony Appleyard 06:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Mocved to the right place on the page. Do we really have 60 stubs on mining? Can this not be covered by industry-stub for now? Grutness...wha? 07:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{fictional-character-stub}} (created as fict-char-stub)

I just finished weeding the {{book-stub}} category, bringing it down to around 3 1/2 pages(650), and I see the dire need for the abovementioned stub-cat, thereby relieving the fantasy, sf- and lit categories; it sounds a bit heavy and unwieldy, though. Some ideas? Lectonar 11:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This one was mooted before a couple of months back, and wasn't done then because of cross-category problems. You'd have to decide whether you also wanted characters from movies, video games, anime, etc listed in there too. Perhaps {{fictional-bio-stub}} would be a better name, or maybe {{book-character-stub}} if you were trying to limit the scope of the category. Grutness...wha? 12:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on some RPG listings (notably Hero Games and those connected) and I'd like to see a stub area for fictional characters as well. I think {{fictional-character-stub}} would be serviceable, at least until it became obscenely overcrowded. And then again, many characters appear in multiple media.
  • I think some form of this would be a good idea. I'm not sure exatly which version would be best. DES 21:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • How does {{lit-character-stub}} sound? I was thinking of {{lit-bio-stub}} at first, but that would have probably been taken for {{lithuania-bio-stub}} Lectonar 06:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I would take {{lit-bio-stub}} to mean a biography of a literary figure, a writer or perhaps a patron of writers, not of a fictional character. I would favor {{fict-char-stub}} (or {{fictional-character-stub}} if you hate abbrevs) if one wants a general category. foir a category related to characters from written fiction only I would tend to {{fict-book-char-stub}} or {{book-char-stub}}. I like having "fict" in the name it matches several other stubs and gets the poitn across quickly, but perhaps {{fict-book-char-stub}} has too many parts to the name? DES 17:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
        • It would have the one advantage that, iuf needed, other stub types could be consistently named with it ({{fict-film-char-stub}}, {{fict-cvg-char-stub}}, etc). Grutness...wha? 01:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not really happy with this 4-part stub, so I would still opt {{fict-char-stub}}, even if it does include other fictional characters from games et al. Lectonar 11:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Personally I'm not sure that cutting across films / video games / book is really that big a problem given that there are a good number of sci-fi / fantasy characters that appear in various media. Different aspects of the characters, for example if a movie char is completely diff from the book, can be dealt with within the article. -- Lochaber 12:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{bio-book-stub}} (Created)

In doing some subsorting within Category:Book stubs I have found a number of biographies and autobiographies. Currently the best tag for these is {{nonfiction-book-stub}} but that is already a large category on its own. We already have Category:Autobiographies and Category:Biographies so a parallel stub type seems reasonable. People sometimes incorrectly use {{bio-stub}} which is of course for articels that are biographies, not for articles about biographies. Whether a separate {{autobio-book-stub}} should be created specifically for autobiographies, I'm not sure. Brief searching through Category:Biographies and a google search on biography + Book + stub and one on autobiography + Book + stub and one on autobiographical + stub produced the following list of articles that could wll be taged with this new stub tag. More could easily be found.

Dreams Die Hard Sex and the Single Girl Nervous Conditions Bring On the Girls (when written) Emile Save Me the Waltz The Life of Flavius Josephus The English Teacher Papillon (book) Autobiography of a Yogi Iacocca: An Autobiography Everybody's Autobiography My Autobiography (Mussolini) An Autobiography (Nehru) The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin The Autobiography of Charles Darwin The Autobiography of Malcolm X The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas Mary, Queen of Scots (1969 book) Louis Riel: A Comic-Strip Biography Eminent Victorians Life of Johnson The Agony and the Ecstasy Brief Lives Cheaper by the Dozen Disco Bloodbath Hello, I Must Be Going! (biography) Marquis Who's Who Prithvirajaraso The Real Lincoln The Secret Life Of A Satanist Who's Who (UK) Wild Swans On Famous Women

the above by DESiegel Lectonar

    • Ooops sorry I forgot to sign this. DES 17:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, I've been doing the whole book-stub list, but refrained to sort them into the nonfiction category, so I would go along with with you here; I don't think there is a need for an {{auto-bio-stub}}, though. This said, I've haven't the faintest idea how to name it Lectonar 06:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason I sugested a separate stub type for autobiographies was that I seemed to encounter about as many autobiography stubs as stubs about regular biographies, and we have separate categories for the non-stub articles, as i mentioned above. We could certianly start with {{bio-book-stub}} and split if we feel a need later. DES 17:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever is decided, note needs to be taken of {{book-char-stub}} oir whatever it's to be called, immediately above here. We don't want to get the two mixed up! Grutness...wha? 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. The two should work together. With luck they will make it possible to clear out book-stub quite a bit. DES 15:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Along with this, should there be a stub type for historical novels? I have noticed a fair number of them in book-stub, although i haven't done a count yet. I note that Category:Historical novels does exist. DES 19:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I concur with this; Proposal : let's have a go with {{bio-book-stub}} and perhaps {{hist-book-stub}} (btw, I don't see a problem there to include nonfiction historical books; there aren't that many around anyway) I won't be online for 2 days, though Lectonar 11:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I created the above stub type since there seems no objectiosn, and went through the above list of articles. More will no doubt be added to this type shortly. Now what do people think about {{hist-book-stub}}?

The above by DES Lectonar 12:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced about having historical fiction and history texts in the same category... is there any way of avoiding that? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{units-stub}}

How about a stub which will deal contain various units articles, like batman (mass measure), Picolitre, Oka (measure), which are now number stubs? This category would then be a subcategory of Category:Number stubs.

My motivation would be that units are not exactly numbers. Opinions? Oleg Alexandrov 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This already exists as {{standard-stub}} - not the best name, but it covers things like units of measurement, ISO codes, and test specifications. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, that would not apply to old units of weight and such. I think a units-stub would be more appropriate. Oleg Alexandrov 06:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it does apply - just because they're not current standards doesn't mean they weren't once - if you have a look in the category you'll find lots of units in there (Acre foot, Butt (unit), Carat (mass), Carat (purity), Cumec, Cusec, Dol... and about a dozen or so others). I';m not sure there's enough for a separate category, although Category:Standards stubs could do with re-naming (to Category:Measurement stubs, perhaps?) Grutness...wha? 06:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Update: I've sent Standard-stub and its category across to sfd for possible renaming to measurement-stub, which should more unambiguously cover units. Grutness...wha? 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{google-stub}}

moved to the correct place - this was up at the top of the July section Grutness...wha?

There are so many google articles, most stubs. They need a Category special for themselves --Nathan8225 01:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There are? What is a google stub - a stub relating to Google? Can there possibly be more than a handful of these? I don't think I've ever seen any... Grutness...wha? 05:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{accounting-stub}}

I created this before I even knew we were supposed to ask first - sorry. Giving everyone a heads-up about it here so it can be properly discussed. Basically, I wanted to know more about double-entry book-keeping, but a lot of the articles for the specialized terms (like Normal balance and Expense) seemed pretty stubby and opaque. However, there wasn't an accounting-related stub already, so I created one, because it's something pretty much only accountants or accounting scholars would know a lot about. There are at least a few articles that are in the Accounting category but that have an {{econ-stub}} on them. Plenty of people probably don't think of themselves as experts on economics or finance, but know a lot about accounting (which is distinct from both); they should be given a chance to find these accounting-specific articles and improve them. --Skoosh 02:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Here are some candidates, all drawn from Category:Accounting, and which either I have judged to be stubs or have already been marked as econ-stubs.

--Skoosh 02:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And that looks like just A-C. If the rest of the alphabet have that many, I don't see any problem. Anyone else? Grutness...wha? 09:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This was added to the stub types list today by User:Renata3 but for some strange reason they renamed it to {{acc-stub}}. I have left a note on their taslk page, asking why. --TheParanoidOne 20:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{compu-lang-stub}}

I changed the main category of this stub from Category:Computer science to Category:Programming languages. --R.Koot 21:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable move - although I don't suppose there's any reason why it can't feed into both... Grutness...wha? 01:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Which is probably why you have an MSc. in psychology instead of computer science ;) --R.Koot 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Point taken :) Grutness...wha? 05:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{UK-constituency-stub}}

I noticed that Category:British politics stubs is completely overloaded with parliamentary constituency articles (there are 643 constituencies and most of the articles are stubs) - it makes it extremely difficult to browse through that category for those not interested in constituencies, and there are so many they deserve their own stub in my opinion. The related wikiproject for these articles is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. -- Joolz 00:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather keen to get started on this, are there any objections to me doing so? -- Joolz 20:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
There haven't been any since you rased the idea, so it seems fairly safe to say "go for it!" Grutness...wha?
I'm glad you said that, since I'd already started by the time you said that I think ;) There were 595 (updated, I'd missed some! -- Joolz 20:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)) constituency stubs and there are now 58 articles left over with {{UK-poli-stub}} :) -- Joolz 18:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin stubs

In line with current stub architecture, I propose creating {{Wisconsin-geo-stub}} as a subcategory of the existing {{Wisconsin-stub}}. This will also act as a subcategory for {{US-midwest-geo-stub}} so that stubs on Wisconsin geographical features will not have to have both tags. The newly-formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin will help destubify both of these stubs. I volunteer to mark all necessary articles with this tag. More than 50 articles will initial populate this stub category, with more stubs being formed as a result of the new wikiproject. --BaronLarf 00:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --TheParanoidOne 05:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment - last count showed just 39 Wisconsin-geo-stubs in the US midwest category, but there is a WP. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Update - since that tally was done a month ago the number has risen to a much healthier 67 in the Midwest geo-stub category. Grutness...wha? 13:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Horseracing-stub}}

I'd like to recommend the creation of this stub. Responding to Wikipedia:Stub#New_stub_categories:

  1. No current stub exists to cover this topic.
  2. Horse racing would be a well defined stub area; anything horse racing related (such as tracks, horses, trainers, etc) could qualify.
  3. The new category would cover some areas of existing stubs, and create a well-defined stub category area.
  4. I expect the stub category to potentially cover hundreds of stubs over the long term. Near term, I found quite a few candidates from Category:Racehorses alone, such as Aristides (racehorse) and Assault (horse).
  5. The new stub would not overlap with other stubs; no existing stub does anything like a good job of addressing this stub category.
  6. I believe the new stub will significantly reduce {{sports-stub}}, and reduce confusion about stub sorting of a variety of article types including horses, tracks, and people related to horse racing.

I was motivated to recommend this stub when I found Rox dene on Special:Newpages. The article is clearly a stub, but I could find no clear stub category to place it in. Rox Dene is not a racing horse, but I found that if she were, there's no stub to add to the article that is truly appropriate. {{sports-stub}} is simply too generic. {{mammal-stub}} (Assault (horse) and others were placed in this stub-cat), is more related to species definition than anything. Further, looking at Top 100 U.S. thoroughbred champions of the 20th Century, there are 69 horses on that list alone that do not have articles and stand a good chance of being stubs when created. Taking a look at Category:Horse racing tracks in the United States, there are just 13 articles there. There are innummerable tracks in the U.S. alone, much less the world. These may generate 100s of stubs in the future, with little in the way of stub-sorting to help matters. I'm scratching the surface here, as there are quite a number of famed people in this realm as well, including jockeys (ex: Category:American jockeys), trainers (ex: Category:American horse trainers and owners (ex: Bob Baffert) which areas have and will generate many stubs. --Durin 19:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • {{sport-stub}} may be to generic, but it would be the one to use here; {{horseracing-stub}} may be to specific, but would something like {{equestrian-stub}} do? Lectonar 10:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but I'm thinking that's still too generic. Equestrian sports covers a very, very large area well in excess of the horse racing sub set. There are thousands of farms dedicated to breeding, raising, and training horses for sporting events that do not involve racing. Similarly, there are many events of this type (think Dressage and Rodeo for examples). Horse racing is a sub set of equestrian sporting events that covers a very large area on its own. I thought of the possibility similar to what you suggest, but felt the stub would become just too expansive, much like the {{sport-stub}} is now. --Durin 13:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • We must keep in mind that a stub is an editing aid (Imho), and so is needed only when the amount of stubs pertaining to it reach a certain level (about 60-100), so you can't count the articles that may be created in the future. Btw, the jockeys may go in the {{sportbio-stub}} Lectonar 13:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In my response to (4) above, I noted that I found many candidates. I had considered going through all those horses to find stub candidates that would fit the criteria for this stub, and that's just horses. I didn't do that because it was so time consuming an endeavour. Are you suggesting I do that to support creation of this stub template? I can assure you I can find plenty of stubs that would fit within this category. I would hope you're not suggesting I find at least 60 candidates before we can define this stub. --Durin 16:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and compiled a list of existing candidate articles for this stub. You may view the list at User:Durin/Horseracing-stub. In total, I found 140 articles in my review, which was not comprehensive. --Durin 21:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to the suggestion of using {{sportbio-stub}} for jockeys: Yes, that's true. I think in the future there will be room for {{jockeybio-stub}}, but there's not enough articles to support that at this time. So, the jockey bios should, at a minimum, go into {{sportbio-stub}} as you suggest. However, they will be hopelessly lost in the quagmire that is that category, which currently has 1800+ articles. Having this proposed stub would help to direct efforts on these articles. --Durin 21:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out Wikipedia:Stub#New_stub_categories item #2, where it says "Remember that using stubs categories is a way to facilitate article expansion." Right now, a person with knowledge of horse racing has no ready tool to help them identify articles related to this large international sport. Who would ever look to {{mammal-stub}} to find horse stubs to work on (which itself has 500+ stubs in category)? Some stub sorting could help here, but where do you put horses? Similarly, where do you put racetracks, races, trainers, owners, farms, etc. in any sense that relates to horse racing? It would still be scattershot. By having this stub, we provide a tool whereby someone with knowledge on this sport can find relevant stubs. Without it, there is nothing available that makes sense. In reviewing the status of various articles for the user subpage noted above, I found a stunning (given the fame, money and history of this sport) lack of information, poor organization and number of missing articles. Having this stub would help to cleanup this dirty corner of Wikipedia by directing the efforts of people with knowledge of this sport. --Durin 21:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose Newbury Racecourse would qualify for the stub as well? (all the races listed are stubs too) I'd have thought equestrian-stub would be better though, although it would be harder to spell. -- Joolz 01:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Newbury Racecourse would qualify for the stub. The {{UK-struct-stub}} has ~765 stubs in it. That's a bit unwieldy. Adding a {{horseracing-stub}} would help gain focus on articles within the UK stub that are horse racing related. I'm concerned about {{equestrian-stub}} being far too expansive to be a reasonable stub category. There are millions upon millions of horses in the world. Only a small percentage of those are involved in racing, yet the racing area is large enough in itself to warrant a stub (as observed by the sub page where I noted 140 articles that would qualify for {{horseracing-stub}}). I fear creating {{equestrian-stub}} without at least creating {{horseracing-stub}} would be like creating a notional {{ballsports-stub}} and insisting all baseball, basketball, American football, football, rugby, tennis and more stubs be included in it. It would be unfocused. --Durin 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Something is definitely needed. At the moment, racecourses tend to get geo-stub or struct-stub, and I've even had to resort to giving famous racehorses bio-stub before now. Trouble with the term equestrian is that it brings to mind show-jumping rather than horse racing. For that reason I'd prefer {{horseracing-stub}}, with a possible subsidiary {{horseracingbio-stub}} which - if cleverly worded - could accommodate both the people and the horses involved. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with your statements regarding equestrian vs. horseracing. See my notes above also, where I noted Dressage and Rodeo as other events/horses/people within a notional {{equestrian-stub}} template. {{horseracing-bio-stub}} seems a bit long though. Stub policy allows for two stub templates max per stub article. I think having a {{sportsbio-stub}} and {{horseracing-stub}} for jockeys, owners and trainers would cover this base. What do you think? Saying "biography" in relation to a horse seems...strange :) m-w.com counts biography [1] in relation to an animal as acceptable usage though. --Durin 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

{{horseracingbio-stub}}, not {{horseracing-bio-stub}} (my fault). But it should still be something shorter. jockey-stub makes sense, but cuts out trainers etc... how about {{turf-stub}} and {{turfbio-stub}}? Or is that too ambiguous? Grutness...wha? 10:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • {{turf-nnnnnn}} ...'turf' does seem ambiguous. The term 'turf' is used in other sports as well. For example, AstroTurf and Artificial turf. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Sports under Sportspeople stubs, your suggestion of {{horseracingbio-stub}} fits the pattern, even if it's a bit long. I can't see that there's a way to shorten it though and still have it make sense. Are we settling then on {{horseracing-stub}} and {{horseracingbio-stub}} both being created? If we create both, do you think we should put horses in the former or the latter? I'm inclined towards the former, and let the bio stub take care of jockeys, trainers, owners and any other human generally associated with the sport. The non-bio stub would then cover horses, tracks, races, farms and anything else not covered by the bio stub. What do you think? --Durin 13:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done considerably more work on User:Durin/Horseracing-stub. That page now lists 225 articles as candidates for this stub. Of note; 96 of those articles are currently listed at the over-burdened {{sport-stub}} category. If the {{horseracing-stub}} were created, it would reduce the load on {{sport-stub}} 8.5% (after the stub sorting was done, which I'm willing to do). To any doubters that the proposed stub is too specific; I think we're clearly well beyond that consideration given the presence of at least 225 articles that would qualify. --Durin 18:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK - I think we're all convinced :). Grutness...wha? 01:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{chemist-stub}} *created*

Scientist stubs is 6 pages. I'd guess there's atleast 100 suitable stubs, between that category, and unsorted ones in People stubs. --Mairi 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to have this, and the one below. Paul J 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Created. --Mairi 05:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{physicist-stub}} *created*

Similar reasoning as for {{chemist stub}}; I'd guess there's atleast 100 stubs that'd go in here. --Mairi 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

created --Mairi 05:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Ireland-bio-stub}} *created*

I would like to propose a biography stub, specifically for the people of Ireland. I've come across a few articles deserving of such a stub, such as John T. Browne and Seán Haughey. Both of them were politicians, so I used that stub instead. Other countries have their own biography stubs. It's only right that the Irish have theirs as well. Thank you for taking the time to read my proposal. If anyone notices other stub articles about residents of Ireland, please add them to this list. --Ryan 01:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable, as long as it can be well populated (which I should think qould be no trouble). Surprised it hasn't already been made, in fact. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I found two more candidates: Patrick Lindsay and Seán Moylon. Again, both are politicians, but from Ireland nonetheless. At this rate, perhaps we should add an Irish politician stub. --Ryan 05:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would say: green lights; btw, Seán Haughey is only a stub? Isn't there a new book about him out? Lectonar 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Ryan 08:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Since there haven't been any objections, can I go ahead and create it? Ryan 07:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's supposed to be a week of debate, but if anyone was going to object chances are they'd have done so by now, so I don't think there'd be much concern with it being done 36 hours early. Use one of the other bio-stub categories and templates as, erm, templates for what to do (one like Norway-bio-stub looks well formed), and remember to add it to the stub type list. Oh, and BTW - Finian Lynch is another one! Grutness...wha? 08:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. :P Ryan 10:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Created. It took an hour for me to figure out what I was doing. :) Ryan 11:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Stub_sorting_Proposals_Archive1_f172.html"