Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Proposals, August 2005

[edit] More English county geo-stubs

I've just done a re-tally of the UK and England geography stub categories (now thankfully a lot smaller than they used to be, but still very big - 2500 stubs rather than 3900). The following seven counties have now reached 100 geo-stubs and are probably worth splitting off with their own stub categories:

  • Berkshire and Buckinghamshire (both over 125)
  • Cumbria, Devon, Hampshire, Kent, Norfolk (100-125 each)

Any objections to me splitting these off? Grutness...wha? 11:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Strongly encourage. Alai 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Small Business

I propose a small business and entrepreneur stub category. --Arithmomaniac38 23:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

At what point would a small business stop being a small business and need to drop into the main Category:Business stubs? Same question with entrepreneurs and Category:Business bio stubs. GeeJo (talk) 00:19, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenya stubs

I propose {{kenya-stub}} and {{kenya-geo-stub}}. Uganda already has equivalents and has far less represented on wikipedia. Google searches in en.wikipedia.org show 13,000 references to Uganda and 17,600 references to Kenya. TreveXtalk 15:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Uganda-stub and Uganda-geo-stub were created by someone not aware of this project and only narrowly survived being sent for deletion, since there were nowhere near enough items for either category. Since then, there have been many more stubs created, since the person who created the stub types was actively working on Uganda articles. The size of a parent "main" category is irrelevant as far as the creation of stub categories is concerned - the number of stubs is far more important. There could be 1000 articles on a subject but none of them stubs - in which case there is no need for a separate stub cqategory. In the case of Kenya, there were - at last count (today!) 50 geography stubs related to the country. Geo-stub categories are only created when there are more than about 65-70 - and preferably closer to 100 - stubs, especially when the parent stub category is not heavily populated (and Cat:East Africa geography stubs is not heavily populated). As far as Kenya-stub is concerned, if you can show that there are 60 currently existing stubs that could take the template, then there's no problem (the non-geographic region-related stubs are not regularly talled by us). With the geo-stub, it may well get created when the number of geo-stub articles relating to Kenya increases - but it isn't needed yet. It's not too far away, though. Now if you were to create 15-20 new stub articles on Kenyan geography and add {{AfricaE-geo-stub}} to them, suddenly the creation of a Kenya-geo-stub would look more viable (don't tell anyone I suggested that! :) Grutness...wha? 10:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
By my count, there are now 66 stubs in {AfricaE-geo-stub} that could become {{Kenya-geo-stub}}. However, I tally only a little over 30 stubs at the moment that could use a {{Kenya-stub}} Unless I hear some objections, I'll create the geo stub in about a week. Caerwine 00:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Heh. By my count, there are 67! Did you count the one shared with Tanzania? :) (see note at bottom of page, and newly updated tallies on User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying) Grutness...wha? 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
See compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. Grutness...wha? 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Kenya-geo-stub has been made, at least. Grutness...wha? 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drug Stubs

I am think it would be cool to categorize drug stubs first of all marijuana stubs, then uppers, hallucionegens, downers, inhalants, etc. I love to draw and design and would love to volunteer to design a whole bunch of drug stubs. I already have a bunch of good ideas for "Cocaine" based stubs. What about a crack stub? too.Wiki brah 04:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There's already {{hallucinogen-stub}}. Anything else could go under {{med-stub}}, {{plant-stub}} and/or {{inorganic-compound-stub}}/{{organic-compound-stub}} (depending on the nature of the drug). Or perhaps {{culture-stub}}, if it's more about the affect on society. --Mairi 06:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Actresses?

I dont know about you but did you see my sample work on the "hot jewish actress" stub i did I mean I'd make a whole bunch more if it was ok. I love jewish women they are sooo exotic just check out my "Cherie Fleur Juive," Lisa Kushell (I made that stub for her)Wiki_brah (talk • contribs)

Yes we did notice - it's currently on "Stub types for deletion", because it isn't a category that makes any sense to use. Actresses are classified with actors - since the same editors will be likely to know about both - and sorted by nationality. "Jewish" isn't a nationality, and "hot' in this case is firstly very point-of-view and secondly a fairly dubious way of describing people. If you want to make more stub types, then coming here and proposing them (by name - don't just say you want to make "a whole bunch more") so that they can be debated before possible creation. Also note that templates are only made when they'll be useful to editors - that's the whole purpose for them, not as decoration! Grutness...wha? 07:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you very muchb ut one thing I love decorations I mean I have a talent for design and drawing and graphic design can't you tell I would be happier if i could like design professional stubs for you guys. I know the categories might be a little rare but can you agree my Scarface Stub and jewish Acress stubs did ast least look really nice?Wiki brah 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hip-Hop Stub

A stub for all things Hip-Hop that are stubs. It fulfills everything necessary to warrant it becoming a stub.Urthogie 17:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've come across so many hiphop stubs recently that I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Aecis 18:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Good idea - may I suggest that hiphop-music-stub, or perhaps just hiphop-stub, would be the best way to hyphenate it? Grutness...wha? 01:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
hiphop-stub for now, cus i think almost all of the hip hop categories's articles have to do with the music-- thus, theres no need to alienate the other articles relating to hip hop. definitely hiphop-stub.Urthogie 01:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
-i approve: this stub category would help tremendously in reducing the number of musician stubs. (as would a rap category). what's the next step, is anyone creating it? J. Van Meter 15:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. bio stub sorting

How about subdivisions of the U.S. bio stubs? I imagine there are plenty that would fit into new york, california, etc...others can be done either by state or by region as needed. I'll work on it if someone gives the OK (not sure what protocols should be followed to create new stub templates.) Thanks... Paul 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It would correspond with {{UT-bio-stub}} (shouldn't that be {{Utah-bio-stub}}?). So this proposal has my support, provided ofcourse the threshold can be reached. Aecis 21:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It should be Utah-bio-stub (and I think I might just move it there...). Sounds like a reasonable scheme. I'd suggest following the same sort of pattern as I've been doing with the geo-stubs, both in terms of the naming (and please note GeorgiaUS-geo-stub!) and sorting. If you can, as you go, keep track with a spreadsheet, literally listing each article alongside the state. That way not only will you know which states have enough to split off (maybe a threshold of about 70?) but also which ones should be tagged with the new templates. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Not 100% about this one. We already have several US-<profession>-stub templates, wouldn't continuing that pattern be more useful? Any number of the profession sub-cats look big enough that this would be sustainable for them. Alai 05:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm. You could be right, maybe with the exception of things where there is a specific state relevance (like politicians). As far as Utah goes, the main resson that was created was that there is a separate WikiProject for it. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the exceptions, though somewhat on a "cross that bridge when we come to it" basis; much better to split on the country-profession-stub in the first instance, then see what we're "left with". If US-politician-stubs (say) are already big enough to require re-splitting, then certainly I'm all in favour of doing that on a per-state (or per region) basis. Alai 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
An anon user has also just created {{Florida-bio-stub}} and its category. --Mairi 05:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writer Stubs

I finished going through all the current writer stubs.

[edit] Stats

Thresholding at 50 known stubs and combining into larger groupings where feasible I get the following.

  • 85 stubs in Africa (less Egypt, see discussion below)
  • 75 stubs in the Americas (less US and Canada which have their own cats)
  • 18 stubs in Asia but not a subcat
    • 158 stubs in East Asia (includiong China and Japan)
      • 69 stubs in China
      • 87 stubs in Japan
    • 63 stubs in Middle East (not including Armenia, Egypt, or Turkey)
    • 77 stubs in South Asia
  • 35 stubs in Europe but not a subcat
    • 116 stubs in Central Europe (less Germany)
      • 81 stubs in Germany
    • 121 or 162 stubs in Northern Europe (Nordic + Baltic states + possible Ireland)
      • 112 stubs in Nordic states (Iceland, Scandanavia, Finland)
    • 170 stubs in Southern Europe
      • 57 stubs in Southwest Europe (Spain, Portugal and Andorra) [Could be in Western Europe]
      • 54 stubs in South central Europe (Italy and Malta) [Could be in Western Europe]
        • 52 stubs in Italy
      • 59 stubs in Balkans (less Turkey and Romania, see discussion below) [Could be in Eastern Europe]
    • Western Europe (Benelux + either Ireland, SW Europe, or both needed to reach 50 stubs, might also include Italy)
      • 34 stubs in Benelux
      • 41 stubs in Ireland [could also be in Northern Europe]
    • 48 stubs in Eastern Europe (could also include Romania, Balnkans, Baltic, and Armemia)
  • 66 stubs in Oceania (including Australia)
    • 55 stubs in Australia
  • Miscellaneous
    • 2 stubs in Armenia
    • 8 stubs in Egypt
    • 8 stubs in Turkey

[edit] Proposal

  1. {{Africa-writer-stub}} - At 85 stubs it's large enough and obvious enough to use.
  2. no Americas stub - At 75 stubs its large enough, but possible confusion with {{US-writer-stub}} leads me to suggest waiting until we have enough stubs to make a {{SAm-writer-stub}} is feasible.
  3. {{EAsia-writer-stub}} - China and Japan are large enough for cats os their own, but with the hanja common to all East Asian writing, it makes a good choice for an icon and no matter how we slice it, will be no {{Asia-writer-stub}} for the Korean stubs to go into, if go country specific here. Could also house the few Vietnamese wrier stubs.
  4. {{MEast-writer-stub}} - With 63 to 81 stubs its large enough. Culturally and historically Egypt, Turkey, and Armenia belong here, despite the possibility of their being placed elsewhere on geographic or political grounds.
  5. {{SAsia-writer-stub}} - The only question I see is should we also include the Southeast Asian stubs from other Brahamic script using languages?
  6. no Oceania/Australia stub - By itself, Australia is too small, and Oceania is likely enough to be unobvious as a place for Australian stubs that I don't see the value. I prefer to wait until a {{Australia-writer-stub}} is feasible and then create that.
  7. {{Euro-writer-stub}}, {{Nordic-writer-stub}} or {{NEuro-writer-stub}}, {{CEuro-writer-stub}} - Western and Southern Europe are just too fragemntary to be obvious or significantly more useful that stucking them in Europe. Eastern Europe just has too few stubs. None of the Nordic countries exceeds 40 stubs so there's no likelhood of restubbing the Nordic countries anytime soon. While Germany has enough stubs to justify a cat of its own if it was needed, the cultural interaction with the rest of Central Europe and the difficulty of deciding between Germany and Central Europe for pre-20th century German language authors residing outside the current German borders makes it best to just simply use only Central Europe as a cat for now. The Southern European sub groupings are all so close to being creatable that rather than making one large {{SEuro-writer-stub}}, I'd prefer to wait a bit and see if {{Iberia-writer-stub}}, {{Italy-writer-stub}}, and {{Balkan-writer-stub}} become feasible.


[edit] Discussion

Well I've outlined what I think, now I await your comments. If I hadn't promised to be a good boy after my earlier transgression, I'd go ahead and create {{Africa-writer-stub}} as I see no likely objections there, but these can all wait until the 19th to be created if there is consensus. Caerwine 04:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoo. Well researched! My thoughts on your proposals: {{Africa-writer-stub}}, {{MEast-writer-stub}}, {{Euro-writer-stub}} yes. The others, maybe, but I'd prefer to wait for separate countries, simply because of the problems of definition - already several are close (Germany, Italy, China, Australia and Japan are probably already worth splitting). An overall {{Asia-writer-stub}} might also be a good umbrella category. That would give the following:
The Europe category's still pretty big, but is likely to get more splits relatively soon by the sound of it, and it wouldn't surprise me if India also had quite a few by itself. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
India won't split for quite some time. Only about 30 of the existing South Asia writer stubs can be clearly attributed to India. Anyone living pre-partition in Bengal, Punjab, or Kashmir can't be easily pinned down to the current borders so by the time we have enough India stubs for a separate category, there likely will enough of the undifferentiatable South Asia ones as well (especially after one adds in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. South Asia's fairly easy to define, so long as we don't try to split SE Asia between E Asia and S Asia, so I'll concede the point and leave Burma and the like out of it.
For the most part, individual European countries don't go over even 35 stubs. Lowering the bar below 50 would separate out Spain at 46, Ireland at 41, Russia at 37, and Poland and Croatia at 36 each. Given that it looks like someone has been actively creating Croatian related stubs, I think that country's total is a bit bloated and not likely to grow further anytime soon. The Nordic stubs are pretty much evenly split beteen the individual countries, so unless we get a whole lot more writer stubs, we aren't going to get per country writer stubs for them. With the Nordic countries being easily defined, a Nordic stub makes sense and we can even use the Nordic Council logo for the little picture found stage right in many stubs. Caerwine 07:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, not to sound overly local-patriotic, but in comparison .hr and .ie have a similar population (including diaspora, even) so it cannot be strange that they have a similar number of writers. If anything, it is strange that we have so few .es and .ru writers (or their articles aren't stubs, which would be good but unlikely) because those are much larger nations. --Joy [shallot]
I don't know if you can read too much into that. It could be that there are far more writers from those countries that are beyond the stub level, or it could simply be a language bias. Ireland is, after all, a largely English-speaking country. That explains why there are nearly as many Australian writer stubs as Chinese ones, whereas China has a few more people. Grutness...wha? 10:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the number of editors have a lot to say. I've been working on surveying the stub too (although Caerwine did it all in a fraction of the time I've used to get a quarter of the way though), and a LOT of the stubs barely two sentences, usualy just a name and the name of a book they have written (in fact a lot don't even mention nationality so they are not sorted into any of the sub-stubs, but going by the names I bet 90% of them are or US or UK origin, but I'd rather not guess so they have been left in writer-stubs). Given some time I could easily add 300+ stubs on Norwegian writers alone with more info than that, so there is no doubht plenty of untapped potential for other nations too. Incidentaly someone knowledgable might want to consider going though the writer stub list and weed out the most un-notable writers, I've been adding the {{Importance}} warning to the worst ones recently, but writers are not realy my area of expertise, I've been just working on them since the stub cat was so horrebly bloated, so I can't realy say who's non-notable and who just had a lazy editor. --Sherool 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the stubs outlined by Grutness abowe. Not too crazy about the idea of splitting Europe up into west center or whatever. The argument for using Central Europe instead of Germany to acomodate historical writers might have some merit, but I think (and I am no expert) it's a minor problem. Personaly I'd prefeer to see them split by nation rather than region whenever possible, mostly because the "propper" writer categories are split by nation (then again categories don't need that many articles to make sence as a stub type does). --Sherool 01:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, hazy subgroups will be avoided. Unless I hear differently, here is what I intend on creating come Monday:
{{Africa-writer-stub}}
Americas - no stub for now
Asia - no overall stub
{{China-writer-stub}}
{{Japan-writer-stub}}
{{MEast-writer-stub}}
{{SAsia-writer-stub}}
{{Euro-writer-stub}} The other European wide stubs use the abbreviation Euro, so that form is prefered for consistency.
{{Germany-writer-stub}}
{{Italy-writer-stub}}
{{Nordic-writer-stub}} (well defined area with no likelyhood of individual country stubs anytime soon)
{{Spain-writer-stub}} Mining generic Spanish biography stubs should easily bring this up to the threshold.
Oceania - no overall stub
{{Australia-writer-stub}}
- Caerwine 05:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not use Nordic, use NEuro or Scand (and, yes, I believe usage will show that Finland is "Scandinavian" even if it's not on the peninsula; neither is Denmark.) Someone will scream if you do; "Nordic" is perfectly respectable, but, like "Aryan", it should be avoided where possible. Septentrionalis 20:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd be very interested to see some evidence for that assertion. I've usually seen Scandinavia include Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Iceland and Føroyar are sometimes included - but never Finland. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I've already been chided for suggesting Scandanavia as a possibility, North Europe is too vague. (Does it it include the British Isles or the Baltic states as some usages do?) Nordic has the dual advantages of being precise and having a ready to use logo of the Nordic Council which is an organization that includes only the countries intended to be covered by the tag. Caerwine 08:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Does Europe really need separating by region? 520 stubs is quite a few, but splitting Spain off will drop it below 500 - we're not talking thousands of stubs. And before long some of the other countries are going to get to splittable levels - especially as bio-stub is being emptied out. Grutness...wha? 08:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll hold off at least a week before creating Nordic so that the generic bio-stubs and the individual Country-bio-stubs in question can have a bit more time to sort out. Caerwine 09:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Recatting of the writer stubs is done. The category now being only large instead of very large I took the tag off the cat, but added it to US-writer as it's a 7 page cat now. None of the European countries are even close to having 60 stubs in European writer stubs at the moment. It is possible that if one were to sort the individual country bio stubs that Ireland, Norway, Poland, Russia, and Sweden might have enough, but I'm all tuckered out from recatting, and it will be a while before I feel like making that sort of effort again. Caerwine 01:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Radio-bio-stub}}

Radio personalities are very hard to categorize currently.--Carabinieri 16:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I was just about to propose this. Sounds like a good idea. Radio-stub should be for programs and stations.--Rayc 22:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think there are enough stubs to fit that category. Jaxl | talk 02:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is already discussed above in #Radio personalities. --Joy [shallot]

[edit] Historical regions/countries bio stubs {{Ancient-Rome-bio-stub}}

While sorting bio-stubs, I have found that there is a need for stub categories for inhabitants of countries that no longer exist. It is very hard to categorize inhabitants of Ancient Rome, I dont think it is adequate to categorize them as Italians. A similar although slightly easier case is the Soviet Union; you could categorize them under the country, which now lies in the part of the Soviet Union where they were born (Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Belarus, etc), or categorize them all as Russians, but I feel both options are inadequat.--Carabinieri 16:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We'ver gone through exactly this argument before for mediaeval Europeans. There is a separate Roman-stub - a Roman-bio-stub might well be useful, if it was made clear that it was for anyone from the ancient Roman Empire (remember that many famous "Romans" actually came from places well beyond the city itself - some of them as far away as modern Britain, Spain, and Tunisia). Grutness...wha? 01:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of a {{Soviet-Union-bio-stub}} or {{USSR-bio-stub}}?--Carabinieri 16:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Apparently there already is a {{USSR-bio-stub}}, created about a month ago. Aecis 19:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Ooops!--Carabinieri 12:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Then I guess this proposal will be just for {{Ancient-Rome-bio-stub}}. It could be named {{Rome-bio-stub}}, but I think that could be problematice, because people form modern Rome might be put into this category.--Carabinieri 06:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as the name is concerned note that the non-bio temp[late is simply Roman-stub, so I'd recommend {{Roman-bio-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Given that we have {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}} and {{Ancient-Greece-stub}}, I'd much rather see {{Roman-stub}} renamed {{Ancient-Rome-stub}} for consitency that way. Caerwine 10:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, actually... perhaps it should be taken to sfd for renaming. You want to? I've been putting far too much on there lately... Grutness...wha? 10:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Croatia-party-stub}}

This one is tricky. There are (in this moment) 78 {{Croatia-stub}} stubs, and this is about to grow since that Category is still expanding. 31 out of that 78 are stubs about Croatian political parties. I strongly doubt this number will rise significantly. Is 31 articles enough for a brand new stub category? Secondly, I don't se regional political stubs. It might be that all politicaly stable countries have rather small number of parties or something, but {{Croatia-party-stub}} would be first of that kind. That's why I ask you guys: should I create the category? --Dijxtra 17:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest not. The parent is still significantly too small to split, much less in danger of having to be split, which it's short of by a factor of 10. I have no reason to doubt you that the category is growing, but it's never a sure thing how fast, plus they might perhaps be fleshed out into non-stubs faster than expected, etc. Plus, I'm very much inclined to stay with the "clear and present" splitting criteria, otherwise it opens us up to the pleas of "I know it only has three stubs in it, but it has enormous scope for expansion!" arguments that we already see from time to time. Also, delaying the split will hopefully also make it much clearer on what basis to split; for example, there may be a much larger number of politics stubs in general, in future, than political parties per se. Alai 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, you're right. We wait and see. --Dijxtra 16:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{fashion-bio-stub}}

There was an identical proposal to this one in October; although there were no major objections, the stub was not created. While sorting people stubs, I noticed the necessety for a stub for people involved in the fashion industry: designers, etc. As to the question which was raised during the August proposal of this stub tag: I don't have a problem with including photographers into this category, but they fit into the photographer stub category better.--Carabinieri 17:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  • There are quite a few marked with {{Fashion-stub}} that could take this as well. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I created it now. I don't think we needed to open a whole new section about this, a reminder at the old one would have sufficed. --Joy [shallot] 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A handful more geo-stubs

The following have now reached a splittable level:

This is what I was checking with User:Guettarda about the other day. He says that the name Trinidad-geo-stub shouldn't cause problems with any wikipedians from Tobago (much in the way we use {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} for Newfoundland and Labrador). Grutness...wha? 13:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Split away. Let's hope the hate-mail from Tobagans does indeed remain at manageable levels... Alai 17:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Heh - you made the same mistake I did. It's "Tobagonians", apparently! Grutness...wha? 01:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops, here comes that hate-mail, I guess. I went ahead and "bolded" Wiltshire, I suggest the rest be done whenever anyone has the notion -- the basis for such a split is already agreed in principle, subject to viability, as I understand it, and on the evidence above, they're all viable. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The other three English counties are going to be a few days away, sadly - I got a glitch in the spreadsheet I keep the list of those articles in and lost about half the data. Luckily I keep separate files for the different regions, so I've got the data from all the other geo-stub groupings, but I've got to go through about 500 England-geo-stubs to see where they refer to. Hopefully by the weekend. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's add {{Arizona-geo-stub}} to the list. It, too, is above 70 stubs. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

Darwinek's pointed out to me that Australia-geo-stub also needs splitting, and although I haven't done a full check, it should be easy to split off four of the states at least. Just going by the article titles there are at least the following numbers - I've added an estimate based on the same proprtion of stubs with less clear-cut titles:

As to the names... I think Victoria-geo-stub will be understandable enough, despite the faint possibility of confusion with Victoria, British Columbia. NSW is a bit less certain - NewSouthWales-geo-stub is a better name, but a bit long. Advice, comments, etc. welcome! Grutness...wha? 05:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better as {{NewSouthWales-geo-stub}}, which is still shorter than {{WesternAustralia-geo-stub}} and {{SouthAustralia-geo-stub}} and shorter forms of them using WA and SA will be confusing. There are at least 50 in that category for South Australia, too. --Scott Davis Talk 07:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
There are - and about 60 Tasmanian ones as well. I'd prefer to stick with the big four states for now, though, otherwise the main category will have just half a dozen NT and ACT stubs and that's it. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Create 'em, no strong opinion either way on exact names. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll stick with the full names as per Scott's suggestion. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I created a {{Victoria-geo-stub}} but for some reason articles with this stub aren't showing up in Category:Victoria geography stubs. - Diceman 15:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
You modified the category on the template after it had been added to the articles. In situations like this, while the article may have the new category listed, the category itself won't have the article (I have no idea why!). I did a null edit on Baw Baw National Park which pushed it into the category. Null edits on the rest should fix the problem. --TheParanoidOne 18:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll put the articles I know the location of on my User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits page - but I'm still going through the category checking this one. I'd hoped to have it done by the time these categories were meant to be created - on the 24th (remember waiting a week?) Grutness...wha? 01:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: The final count, state-by-state, shows that Tasmania has 120 stubs and South Australia has 91... but, given that just removing the four states that are due for splitting will reduce Cat:Australia geography stubs from 1743 stubs to 295 stubs (a mammoth 83% reduction), that should do the trick for now. Tasmania is probably worth proposing in the next tally-up of geography stubs in general in a few weeks' time, though. My geo-stub split page now has the full lists for the four states to be split. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other stub-related discussions

[edit] Regional X-related stubs

Category:Stubs by region shows that most regional stubs have names which follow the pattern "X-related stubs". It has been mentioned that these should be changed to remove "-related". I propose such a change, to remove "-related". If the change is done, a bulk Stubs for Deletion entry will be used. This proposal only applies to regional stubs and not other Categories which happen to contain "related". (SEWilco 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

Possible issues: "Norway stubs" implies it is directly related to Category:Norway, while "Norway-related stubs" specifies the stub might be indirectly related to Norway. Also, country-referencing grammar rules suggest "Norway stubs" perhaps should be "Norwegian stubs" (which already exists), but "Norwegian" is the name of the language of Norway and thus might be reserved for language-related stubs. (SEWilco 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

But "Norway stubs" ARE connected to items in Category:Norway, or certainly should be. Every other section of stubs predominantly uses the formula "Category:Noun stubs", with the stubs connected to items in "Category:Noun". The reasons for this are two-fold. One of these reasons was clear when Category:Historical stubs was changed to Category:History stubs recently. Using an adjective makes for a description of the stubs themselves, rather than a description of the subjects to which they are referring. In many cases, this makes little difference, but in others it definitely does (these were stubs about history, not old stubs). Also, we are frequently told that the names of the stub categories should reflect the names of their parent non-stub categories. So, for example, "Category: Iceland" should have Category: Iceland stubs as its child, not Icelandic stubs, nor Iceland-related stubs.
Adjectival usage does cause confusion, and not just as far as the names of languages are concerned. Would Dominican stubs be about Dominica, the Dominican Republic, or a holy order? Then there's Nigerian and Nigerien... and would many intuitively realise what adjective should be used for Monaco (Monegasque), Kiribati (Gilbertese), or Shropshire (Salopian), to name just three examples?
All in all, using the same "Noun stubs" formula as used on the vast majority of other stub categories is the most logical answer. Note too that most of the new discoveries (e.g., the recently discovered Category:Saudi Arabia stubs) follow this pattern. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

(Since writing all this I have re-read SEWilco's original comments, and notice that I had originally mis-read them. For this reason, I seem to be arguing aginst him even though we are largely in agreement. Sorry for that! Grutness...wha? 01:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Standardise to X-related stubs

[edit] Standardise to X stubs

  1. Approve: Standardize all these. (SEWilco 02:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC))
  2. Standardise to the same as other stub categories. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. The simplest solution. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. I've hated the x-related stub categories, but was too lazy to propose changing them. They were awkwardly worded and irrregularly formed. Get rid of the danged things and give the categories much more reasonable names that matches their stubs and their "parent" categories. BlankVerse ∅ 14:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. I find the comments of Grutness above persusive. DES (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. At last... Lectonar 10:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yep. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Simplest, clearest solution. --Mairi 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. This seems like a much better idea. --ScottDavis | Talk 11:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standardise to Xian stubs

[edit] Do not standardise

[edit] Reorganisation of People stubs subcategories

I've been bold and started to reorganise the subcategories of Cat:People stubs by making two umbrella subcategories: Cat:People stubs by nationality and Cat:People stubs by occupation, in order to clear the huge mess on the first page of the people stubs category and to make it more in line with the Stub types page. If there are strenuous objections, I'll put it back the way it was, but something needed to be done there... Grutness...wha? 10:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds entirely sensible to me. Alai 20:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Africa/Central Africa

There has been a considerable discussion over on the Talk:West Africa page over what should be counted as West Africa and what Should be counted as Central Africa and a consensus has been reached there to shift the boundary westward. (The text in the West Africa article has been changed to match the consensus, but the pics are as of yet unchanged. Fortunately, this won't require us to change any stub types as the affected countries don't have any country level stub types yet, but this will involve moving some articles from {{AfricaW-geo-stub}} to {{AfricaC-geo-stub}}. The affected counties are:

I'm in the middle of doing a sweep through the Africa geo stubs anyway so as to see if there are any viable new stub types to propose. Shall I go ahead and make this change while I'm at it? Caerwine 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll put what stubs I know from those countries on my User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits page. I had actually just started going through all the geo-stubs anyway (it's probably easier for me, since I have them all on database except for any created in the last couple of weeks). I must admit I was surprised by the original boundaries for West Africa anyway. The info in the header of the two categories will need changing too. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Re: the tally - there's been quite a bit of activity as far as several African countries are concerned, and there are now eight unsplit countries with 50 or more stubs. Ghana has 70, and Kenya and Sudan are probably close enough to consider splitting (67 each). Grutness...wha? 05:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (updated again 01:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Stub_sorting_Proposals_Archive7_d37b.html"