Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposals, April-May 2005

[edit] Category:Station stubs

I'm slowly running through this category systematically and collecting information in preparation for this and other splits. For access to an Excel spreadsheet with this information, see User:Ceyockey. Courtland 12:30, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

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

00:53, 2005 May 23 message altered Courtland 04:34, 2005 May 27 (UTC) To assist in segregation of the swollen {{station-stub}}. This was brought up by Grutness under the {{BBC-stub}} discussion. I don't think there is sufficient population available for separate {{UK-radio-staion-stub}} and {{UK-tv-station-stub}}. An examination of the Category:Station stubs resides at Image:Station-stub analysis.xls.

At present I would only recommend the creation of {{UK-station-stub}} as it is the only one that beats the 100-article threshold. As making new stub types is easier than destroying them, additional stub types according to country can be made as they cross the 100-article threshold.

Courtland 00:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

OK, well what the hell, I might as well not bring up making stub types here any more if they're just going to pop up willy-nilly without discussion (which this one has). Might as well just go on my merry way and toss stub types left and right ... happy template creation! Courtland 00:56, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Turns out {{UK-station-stub}} is a rail staion-related stub ... well, not for much longer ... Courtland 00:57, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

see the discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Problem_with_the_new_station_stubs - there was talk of changing station-stub to broadcast-stub, so this could get a little messy. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
yes yes, I saw that ... I oppose the change to broadcast-stub if only on the basis of precedent. We don't have to have perfect names for the stubs. Courtland 02:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

At c.500 stubs looked at, there are 165 stubs that could have a {{UK-station-stub}} template affixed. Courtland 04:34, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

[edit] {{Canada-station-stub}}

Having looked at approaching 500 stubs, there are 122 stubs that could be affixed with a Canada-station-stub template. Courtland 04:45, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

[edit] proposing changing station

In order to avoid any potential confusion, I propose the following:

  1. Moving {{UK-station-stub}} railway articles to new {{UK-railstation-stub}}
  2. Moving {{US-station-stub}} railroad articles to new {{US-railstation-stub}}
  3. Using the two former names for broadcast stations, as per Courtland's suggestions above.

Any comments, positive or negative? Grutness...wha? 03:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay... I see they've already been changed to UK-depot-stub and US-depot-stub. Problem with that, of course, is that depot doesn't mean railway station in the UK, it means the place where railway engines and buses are stored for maintenance or when not in use (the "shed", if you like). Grutness...wha? 08:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] alternate naming convention

After going through (very slowly compared to the speed I've seen others accomplish) close to 900 stubs in this group, it looks like it would be best to abandon the "station" moniker and go for "broadcast" or "media". The reason I feel this is that the mix of stubs includes a) individual stations, b) broadcast towers, c) station networks, d) companies and e) looser groups of stations. This arrangement would also provide an outlet for some stubs from under the {{corp-stub}} and {{org-stub}} templates, and likely some from under the various struct-stub categories ... broadcasting structures seem to be treated in the category system distinctly from building structures; for instance, there's the whole Category:Guyed masts. At present the following could be made: {{Canada-broadcast-stub}}, {{UK-broadcast-stub}}, {{US-broadcast-stub}}, {{Broadcast-stub}} (to which {{Station-stub}} could redirect for eventual retirement). Further, I'd suggest {{Tv-stub}} and {{Radio-stub}} be placed as children of {{Broadcast-stub}}. {{Tvseries-stub}} could eventually be resorbed by {{Tv-stub}} so that {{Tv-stub}} and {{Radio-stub}} would become semantically identical but for the difference in medium, i.e. both containing programs. The eventual hierarchical organization would look like this:

Broadcasting-stub (Broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  *R Station-stub (Station stubs)
  Tv-stub (Television program stubs)
     *R Tvseries-stub
     US-tv-stub (United States television programme stubs) <=NEW
        Buffyverse-stub (Buffyverse stubs)
        ST-stub (Star Trek stubs)
           ST-ep-stub (Star Trek episode stubs)
        Nickelodeon-stub (Nickelodeon stubs)
        PBS stub (PBS stubs)
     UK-tv-stub (United Kingdom television programme stubs) <=NEW
        Doctorwho-stub (Doctor Who stubs)
     Tv-bio-stub (Television biographical stubs)
     Soap-char-stub (Soap opera character stubs) <=NEW
        *R SoapChar
  Radio-stub (Radio programme stubs)
  Canada-bcast-stub (Canada broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  US-bcast-stub (United States broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  UK-bcast-stub (United Kingdom broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     BBC-stub (BBC stubs) (also subcat under UKTv-stub)
  Singapore-bcast-stub (Singapore broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     *R Singapore-tv-stub
  HK-bcast-stub (Hong Kong broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     *R Hong-Kong-tv-stub
     *R HK-tv-stub 
  Website-stub (Website stubs) (would include things like podcasting stations and internet only radio)

This is a lot to digest, but I think it provides an extensible platform that, I hope, doesn't need to be extended much at all.

Courtland 23:53, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

The overall hierarchy looks good, but why UKTv-stub, UScast-stub, etc., and not UK-tv-stub, US-cast-stub, etc? You're splitting things by a second variable, so there should be a second hyphen, surely, and television isn't a proper noun, so why upper case? The names youve suggested don't follow the (extremely tentative, sure) naming guidelines... (This would also be a good opportunity to change the name of SoapChar to soap-char-stub or similar) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-editing advice ... I've changed things in the box above to match, introduced soap-char-stub, and highlighted new additions. Courtland 03:36, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
A distinct improvement :). And as I said before, the hierarchy looks good, too. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh - given that some of the abbreviated country names seem to be being used for precedents for confusing names (see mv-stub below), I'd also suggest not using Ca- or Sg-. I know it needs a bit more typing, but... Then again, we can probably do without the xx-broadcasting-stub redirects, too, which would remove five lines from the list! Grutness...wha? 09:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. I removed the long names and changed the short names to "country-bcast-stub", bcast so as to not confuse with cast as in list of players. Courtland 13:55, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
No complaints from me this time :) sorry about all the revisions etc above! Grutness...wha? 11:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes from another quarter

User:Lifeisunfair has provided a lot of input and opinion on this matter lately, including a different organization and stub type set from that proposed above and now partially enacted. The conversation that has ensued is at User_talk:Lifeisunfair#About_.26.23123.3B.26.23123.3BTv-stub.26.23125.3B.26.23125.3B. I'm suggesting there that further discussion take place here. Courtland 16:29, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

picking up the thread...
One fundamental that we seem to differ on is the priority of geography over mode of transmission. I think we can have it both ways by taking advantage of double stubbing. In cases where a country is not split out into its own broadcasting sub-stubtype category, I double stub to {{Broadcasting-stub}} and the country stub, such as {{Japan-stub}}. In the case of the United States, the number of states with stubtype categories is rising, so we could double stub to {{US-bcast-stub}} and the state stub, such as {{Texas-stub}}. Granted, not all states (or in the case of Canada, provinces) have their own stubtype categories.
to be continued Courtland 17:16, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. This is pretty much how struct-stubs are (theoretically at least) done,. but - understandably - in that case geo-stubs are used (so a building in Japan gets both asia-struct-stub and japan-geo-stub, for instance). The big question, I think, is "what is the most likely thing for casual editors to be looking for?" Personally, I'd expect someone in one country to know more about the media of that country, so I see a fair amount of logic in splitting by country. Of course there will be editors who know about one type of media worldwide, but these would probably be in the minority. Grutness...wha? 09:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Street

Moved from where it was listed under "Newly-discovered..." to here

I'd like to propose a stub for city and town streets: {{street-stub}}.

Some of these are mistakenly listed under {{road-stub}}, there abandoned ignominiously to wither among rural roads, highways, and the like. Stubbing them for what they are—streets, not roads—would make them likelier to catch the eye of urbanists and Jane Jacobs types knowledgeable in urban planning and interested in such matters as street life, the street wall, the sidewalk, pedestrian activity, and so on.

Streets in List of carfree places (e.g. those in Venice) are especially likely candidates, as not even a suburbanite could possibly mistake them for "roads."

Typogfk 22:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Reasonable (having walked on a couple of those streets), though easily overused ... there's a tendency for there to be at least one person out there who will dump a database into Wikipedia in the form of stubs ... and if that happens with this stub type, woe be our band of stub-warriors here. Which reminds me about the debate as to whether zipcodes are encyclopedic a while ago (not here, but elsewhere). Courtland 01:51, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  • support - with caveat. Currently, we have road-stub, UK-road-stub, and US-road stub. You'll probably need the equivalent categories here, too, otherwise you'll be moving artciles out of a more specific category and into a less specific one. Also, as to not even a suburbanite could possibly mistake them for "roads.", in some countries "road" means leafy suburban avenue whereas "street" means busy car-laden main thoroughfare. In those countries, highways are bigger than streets, streets are bigger than roads. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Good point about "street" and "road" being prone to local flavoring and inconsistent usage. Maybe there is a better term that get's across the message. One generic term might be "way" (way-stub, whey-stub, weigh-stub ... good thing we work in text here). Courtland 22:22, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

What if we went from the other direction, and marked the main routes {{highway-stub}} (or {{mway-stub}}, or {{hiway-stub}}, or {{route-stub}}), making them the subcategory? Would that work? Grutness...wha? 03:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. I am interested to know how to draw the distinction between streets and roads. Some roads kept the word "street" in their names, while being expanded from a street in history. Some streets have the names "road", but are not actually roads. Abbey Road (street) given above is categorised as a street. — Instantnood 08:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Again, it's a definition thing. I too would argue that Abbey Road is most definitely a road, but is not a street, since it isn't one of the busier thoroughfares in London. Which is why I'd suggest going the other way - there can be some confusion as to what is a street and what is a road, but a term like highway or motorway is a bit less ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've always seen road and street as synonymous, so I'd be hard pressed trying to figure out where to stick a stub if those two categories were to exist. --TheParanoidOne 10:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The word highway may mean something different in different countries. In the UK, Hong Kong and probably some other places every path can be highway. I agree motorway is less ambiguous, and would be useful as a stub type. Other words I've in mind are expressway and freeway. — Instantnood 18:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Freeway has a different meaning in some countries to others, too, especially countries that still have toll roads. Is motorway too "unamerican" a term (i.e., does it make sense to US readers and editors)? Or is it, too, a country specific name? Grutness...wha? 00:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals, June 2005

[edit] Food and Drink Specific stubs

[edit] Basic divisions

There are well over 800 stubs in the {{food-stub}} category. In fact #800 begins with an I. Therefore, I propose the following generalized stubs to help bring this category down to size. Since these are not terribly specific, I am not going to attempt to prove them, unless somebody sees fit to challenge their necessity.

  • {{drink-stub}}
  • {{meat-stub}}
  • {{fruit-and-veggie-stub}}
  • {{dairy-stub}}
  • {{desert-stub}}
  • {{alcoholic-drink-stub}} or {{alco-drink-stub}} for brevity.
Granted, there is a {{beer-stub}} for Beers and breweries, but I saw a lot of other alcoholic beverage stubs in Category:Food and drinks stubs--and I don't even drink!

Also, I propose these specific stubs because as I skimmed through the Food Stubs, I couldn't help but notice them.

[edit] {{soda-stub}}
As a Midwesterner, I request that if {{soda-stub}} is created, that {{pop-stub}} be created as well as a redirect.  :) A2Kafir 19:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can't argue with that. We may need to create Template:Cola-stub as a redirect as well. *Kat* 08:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
well, I can argue with that! :) The only three things on here that are "soda" are a type of bread, a machine and a slang term for a person! Grutness...wha? 09:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about {{soft-drink-stub}} ? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's what they're called here, so it's fine by me, but is the term widely used in the US, UK, etc? Grutness...wha? 02:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The term "soft drink" is fine for the UK. --TheParanoidOne 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whatever it's called, Soda bread and soda jerk shouldn't be labelled with them. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. :) --TheParanoidOne 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{candy-stub}}
  • Airhead (candy)--brand
  • Aero (chocolate)--brand
  • Big League Chew--brand
  • Big Red (chewing gum)--brand
  • Black Jack (gum)--brand
  • Bottle Caps (candy)
  • Bubble Tape
  • Bubble Yum
  • Bubblicious
  • Bubbaloo
  • Bust-up gum--brand
  • Butterfinger
  • Chocolate bar
  • Chocolate chip
  • Crunch (candy)--brand
  • Crunchie--brand
  • Crunchy Frog

[edit] {{cook-tool-stub}}

(best name I could come up with.)

  • Bottle opener
  • Broiler
  • Coffee filter
  • Cookie cutter
  • Extractor hood
  • Food processor
  • Grater
  • Heidelberg Tun
  • Kettle
  • London grill
  • Mandolin (cooking)
  • Oven
  • Pot still
  • Potato ricer
  • Salt shaker
  • Salt cellar
  • Slop bowl
  • Skillet
  • Sunbeam CG
  • Waffle iron
  • Wok with Yan
Thinking a bit wider - {{tableware-stub}} for the tableware and {{cooking-stub}} for everything else? --Joy [shallot] 20:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I went with cooking-tool/food-utensil/cook-tool -stub. --Joy [shallot] 11:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that while I was searching for enough articles to justify my more specific proposals I came across enough articles to justify a sauce-stub, sandwiche-stub, chicken-stub and hot-drink-stub. It remains up to somebody else to justify these, because I am sick and tired of looking at that food-stub category.*Kat* 05:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I found my original edit and have restored it here. *Kat* - I hope that your deletion of my comments was an accident rather than deliberate! Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with a broader split to start with - into just food and drink - after all, it's not like you're talking 3000 stubs here. Then we can worry about the separate parts. As far as drink is concerned, we have {{beer-stub}} and {{wine-stub}} - adding in {{spirits-stub}} and a generic {{drink-stub}} would probably be enough there (and I certainly don't like the name {{soda-stub}} - only about three of the things you had on that list were soda, and of them one was a food!). As for food, there's already talk of a {{fruit-stub}}, so why not add {{vegetable-stub}} and {{sweet-stub}} (or {{candy-stub}}, one to redirect to the other, perhaps?). That should cut the category down considerably without having to worry about cooking utensils (which aren't foods anyway, they're tools!) and subdivisions like meat and dairy. All these subdivisions are probably overkill. Oh, and I hope you meant {{dessert-stub}} :) Grutness...wha? 05:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I support Grutness' proposed stub categories. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
{{vegetable-stub}} would be very welcome, and the category would be well populated. On the other hand, {{fruit-and-vegetable-stub}} or even {{food-plant-stub}} might better for giving a place for less clear cases, and for edible seed stubs. — Pekinensis 30 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)
Update: {{vegetable-stub}} has been made, to join the {{fruit-stub}} made last month. Grutness...wha? 3 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

[edit] {{LIS-stub}}

LIS = Library and information science. It's an academic field. --Robojames 14:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many of those exist and where are they sorted at the moment? -- grm_wnr Esc 18:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At least one (Integrated_library_system) is currently unsorted. I haven't gone looking for others, I just happened upon this one while stub-sorting, realized there was no appropriate category, came here to look for a discussion, and found this discussion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
OPAC was in computer stubs until I removed it... because it's not really a stub anymore. Check out the LIS category for a list of LIS articles. Many of these may be stubs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Is this related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Librarians? If so, precedent says a stub type would be appropriate, even if the number of stubs needed for a stub type (about 100) is not met - which I doubt in this case. I recommend a better name for the template though, we generally try to avoid cryptic TLAs. How about {{lib-stub}} or {{library-stub}}? -- grm_wnr Esc 19:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The abbreviation "LIS" is in standard use among people knowledgable in the area. I'd suggest though that if this is created it be broadened and created as {{InfoSci-stub}}, co-created with Category:Information science stubs and placed as a child of Category:Information science. The new category could become a parent of several already existing categories that deal with information work (see the subcategory listing for Category:Information science. Courtland 19:50, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
To me "Information science" is a subdivision or alternate name for computer science -- the field of organizing computerized data, sorting and searching algorithims, and the like. DES 23:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a former library assistant, I've never heard of the term. You sure it isn't a piece of US-only terminology? Infosci-stub would make a lot more sense, as it's a considerably wider category. Not Lin--stub (too ambiguous) or Library-stub (that would be the buildings), though. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
People who work in libraries to implement categorization systems typically aren't typically doing "information science" or "library science" work. I'm referring to folks who work on the design of categorization systems and controlled vocabularies or work with collection curation and the design of descriptive systems for those collections ... apologies if that was your role as a library assistant. As for being US-only, considering the following websites I don't think so:
A lot of academic institutions use "Library and Information Studies" instead. Also, the frequency of use varies in different regions; for instance, significantly higher frequency of use in India versus Europe.
Courtland 08:03, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
OK - I'm willing to be convinced - how many stubs could take LIS-stub? Grutness...wha? 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Courtland June 29, 2005 12:21 (UTC)

[edit] {{Reli-hist-stub}}

What about {{Reli-hist-stub}} for marking history-of-religion articles? ~~~~ (Added by User:-Ril-)

[edit] Split of {{Corp-stub}}

This category is very large (Up to "An-" is shown on the first page). Currently {{India-corp-stub}} exists. — Instantnood 08:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • All previous divisions of {{Corp-stub}} have been by business sector (Airlines, record producers, financial services, and the retail sector). We should probably look at adding a couple more sectors before branching out into geographical divisions. Two obvious sectors to break out are electronics manufactures and software corporations. I don't have counts, but other possibilities that might have enough stubs to justify a split include aerospace, restaurants, automotive, biotech, telecomm, and the energy sector. --Allen3 talk 11:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Could it be both by business sector and by country? — Instantnood 20:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes it could, but it would be better to do it by one dimension at a time - first by type of business and then - if there are too many of one type - by country. Multinationals would only confuse the "by country" issue in this case, anyway. Grutness...wha? 03:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Count info

I have started doing some rough counts, and have made it through G. At this point it is looking like aerospace (82 stubs), software development (75 stubs), electronic manufacturers (59 stubs), and food/drink corps (59 stubs) have the best change of making 100. The count for food/drink corporations excludes restaurants and retail grocers (lots of meat packers, bakeries, and candy manufacturers), while the electronics stubs are primarily computer manufacturers. There are also a lot of stubs that resist a quick determination of what type of business is being described, so these counts are probably a little low. --Allen3 talk 22:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split of {{Film-stub}}

This category is very large (Up to "An-" is shown on the first page). Would be nice to be split along countries. — Instantnood 15:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Would it? I'm expecting the vast majority of them to be US movies (I might be wrong, though). After checking 20 random clicks from the first page (this is not very representative, I know): 2 French, 1 Hong Kong, 13 US, 2 Japanese, 1 unable to tell, 1 not a movie. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Genre would give a better distribution. Though admittedly the genre is not always as clear cut as the country of origin. --TheParanoidOne 17:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The genre meta-data might be available for many of the movies from the Internet Movie Database, where they have a page devoted to genres and their application in the database. IMDB also categorizes by language, country, and year; by language would be useful for languages where there are few representatives ... wasn't "The Last Temptation of Christ" in Aramaic with subtitles? Courtland 18:32, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Interesting link! --TheParanoidOne 18:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It guess doing it both by genre and by country would be helpful. — Instantnood 20:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Though I can understand a wish to split this by country, genre would make more sense. Then again, perhaps this is the one instance where a half-and-half split might work. Take out the Indian and Japanese movies, say, then split the rest by genre. Or - perhaps better still - have foreign language movies as a major genre which can then be split by language. Grutness...wha? 03:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • How about by decade? Kappa

[edit] {{director-stub}}

I've been sorting through articles in Category:People stubs recently, and there are many stubs on directors of film, theatre, etc. Other than grouping them by nationality, there is no appropraite directing stub to distiguish them. This should be created to fill a very large, and ever growing, void in the system. Harro5 02:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment: anything that's done needs to take into consideration the already-existing {{film-bio-stub}} and {{film director-stub}}. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:56, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
I concur with F-o-P, this should be passed over given that we have those two stubs already for films. Besides, director can also be a term in economics, in theatre and in music, so it's too ambiguous anyway. And to answer the concrete issue, I don't think I saw that many theatre directors while trawling the People stubs category, so they must have found a place somewhere already (theatre-stub? artist-stub?). --Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
For now, double-stubbing as bio-stub and theat-stub will probably do - if there become too many of them we could consider paring this off later. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{<nationality> writer-stub}}, {{<gene> writer-stub}}, etc.

The Writer stubs category page is starting to get fairly bloated. IMHO more sub-stubs are needed (American writer-stub, crime novel writer stub (ok bad name, but you get the idea) and the linke) to keep things a bit more organized. Right now the only options seems to be either the generic writer stub, or some flavour of comic writer stubs, with nothing in between. --Sherool 29 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Consider also *language* as the criterion, not nationality... they don't need to be the same. --Joy [shallot] 8 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, that would pribably be usefull too, at least in cases where it is not imedeately obvious based on nationality or where there are several official languages (Sweedish language writer in Finland, Spanish language writers in the US, French language writers in Canada and so on).
On a somewhat unrelated note, should we use {{American writer-stub}}, or {{U.S. writer-stub}}. US Writer would be the most corect, but currently "American writers" is what is used in the Writers by nationality category "tree", and "American <foo>" seems to be very widely used synonimously for "US" in most categories. So basicaly should we go for "corectnes" or match the current "de facto" standard as using American as a synonyme for US to avoid confusing people? I guess idealy we should rename all the categories that use American instead of US, but that would mean re-categorising a gazillion articles, and it's not within the "scope" of this particular project. --Sherool 9 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
I don't think there's any question that it should be US-writer-stub. US is also used for every relevant stub template and almost all relevant stub categories (I only know of one where it isn't, and was thinking yesterday that it might need to be changed sometime). Oh, and it should be {{US-writer-stub}}, not {{U.S. writer-stub}}! Note too that there have been quite a few calls on CFD to change everything with "American foo" to either "United States foo" or "Foo of the United States" - except of course those categories which use "American foo" that need to be changed to "Foo of the Americas". In other words, both the usual (US) and technically correct (Americas overall) usages of the term "American" are being used on Wikipedia, which isn't helping anyone. Grutness...wha? 9 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
Ok, I've thrown together a few examples and stuff on a user subpage of mine. The general pattern beeing {{US-writer-stub}}, {{British-writer-stub}}, etc for "writers by nationality" style stubs. {{Fantasy-writer-stub}}, {{Mystery-writer-stub}}, etc for "writers by genre" style stubs (going more or less by the list of genres in the literature article) and {{English-language-writer-stub}}, {{French-language-writer-stub}}, etc for "writers by language" style stubs. If we can agree on the general naming pattern (the names used in the examples are not nessesarily the first to be created (if at all)) and "look" of the template messages (see the examples on my previosly mentioned subpage) I'll just start browsing though the writer-stubs and create apropriate "sub-stubs" along the beforementioned lines, once I have found a sufficient number (figure at least 10 articles or so) of "candidates" for the new stub type. Others are more than welcome to join naturaly, it looks like there is more than enough work that can be done in this area. --Sherool 01:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
WAIT!!! Please look through our naming guidelines first! {{US-writer-stub}} and {{UK-writer-stub}}! overall this scheme is horribly complex, too, and if you're planning to split along all three dimensions I'm strongly against it. We tend to split by one or at most two dimensions (nationality, language, and genre is three). I personally see little need for the split by language. Note also the criteria for new categories is 60 - not 10! Grutness...wha? 06:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, UK not British, and 60 articles got it. Joy suggested using language earlier (Although readig it again I think he wanted to use language instead of nationality) and no one seemed to have anyting against it at the time. You are probably right though, I was merely going for "completenes", but it would be rather complex. I'll scale down the ambition a bit and just focus on nationality for now. We can always talk about "spliting" along genre at a later date. Sound better? --Sherool 10:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I must admit I didn't notice Joy's suggestion at the time. But all other types of bio-stub are split either by occupation or nationality or both. By both nationality and genre is fine, it's just that - as I said - adding a third genre would probably just cause confusion. Nationality's probably a better place to start, since there are quite a few writers who write in more than one genre, but most will only have one or two nationalities. What I'd suggest is to do what's been done with other large categories - do a count of what's in there (even if you just count up the first 100 or so, which should give you an idea of what nationalities could be pared off without much problem - my guess is probably US, UK, France, Germany, and Russia). Also, have a look at WP:WSS/ST, to see the way country-related categories are being named before proposing (or making) any of them. One possible genre split I will suggest, though, is poet-stub, which I've been meaning to suggest for a while - I think there are quite a lot of stubs on poets currently marked writer-stub. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Created: {{US-writer-stub}}

Seemed like a good place to start. Have so far identified 65 articles that would fit the category (after only looking at all Writer stubs starting with A), and I expect there are plenty more. I'll start populating it with the articles I found ASAP. I've listed the new stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Language_and_literature and created the asosiated category. --Sherool 12:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added an extra parent to the category Grutness...wha? 14:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Created: {{UK-writer-stub}}

In my browsing though the Writer stubs category I have now identified over 70 articles that would fit this category. I've created the template and the UK writer stubs category (also a subcat of British people stubs), and moved a couple of articles over already. Once I'm done writing this bit I'll also head over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Language_and_literature and list it there. --Sherool 08:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newly-discovered stub categories

[edit] Newly Discovered, May 2005

[edit] That was the tip of the iceberg

I've just gone through the whole of that list unearthed by BlankVerse... I think I need to go and have a lie down now. The following are 30 previously undiscovered stub templates:

stub template created by when no.of articles type of stubs notes


[edit] chicago-stub
{{chicago-stub}} User: Gerald Farinas April 18 7 (Chicago) now listed at WP:WSS/ST

What about double-stubbing city related stubs with geo stubs? Take, for instance, Chicago Lawn, Chicago. Should it be stubbed as {{US-midwest-geo-stub}} and {{chicago-stub}}? When we did the US-geo-stub split, though, I removed some state related double-stubs (for example, some articles were tagged with {{US-geo-stub}} and {{Texas-stub}}. I just think that the multitude of Chicago neighborhood articles would be better served, maybe, with just a {{chicago-stub}} stub. Thoughts? Guidance? Thanks! — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:26, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I think you should probably use the most specific stub available to you in the hierarchy. In this case stub → geo-stub → US-geo-stub → US-midwest-geo-stub → chicago-stub. (This does of course assume that chicago-stub doesn't mean something random which would exclude stubs about chicago places). --TheParanoidOne 19:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This might be solved by creating {{Illinois-geo-stub}}, which wouldn't be a bad idea anyway. problem is that {{chicago-stub}}, like {{NYC-stub}} implies things other than geographical things. If it were a stub article, Chicago Cubs would be a chicago-stub, but not an illinois-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I like the Illinois-geo-stub option. I take this to mean that the Chicago neighborhoods should not be double stubbed, right? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:16, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so - AFAIK there's no Chicago WikiProject (if there is, they should be kept informed of all his), but my thought is that Chicago neighborhoods (oo. feels strange typing it with that spelling!) should simply be Illinois-geo-stubs. There were 83 at last count, and was one of three of four US states I was going to suggest after the Canada split listed above gets done (hopefully in the next few days). Grutness...wha? 06:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that there is a Chicago WikiProject after all... Grutness...wha? 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Irc-stub
{{Irc-stub}} User: 141.150.16.49 11 April 1 (IRC)

I'm gonna SFD this. One article...--YixilTesiphon 02:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slang-stub
{{Slang-stub}} User: Oklonia 20 March 0 (Slang) Badly formed category

Now on WP:SFD. --TheParanoidOne 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

[edit] {{Cartoon-stub}}

Found: template and category for Cartoon-related stubs

Created: 28 April 2005

Creator: [1]

I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types

Courtland 11:48, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I see problems with this one. "cartoon" could mean things currently covered by comics-stub, or things currently covered by animation-stub. In whichever case, it's already covered, and whichever case, it's ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 11:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Grutness. The articles here should be moved to either animation-stub or comics-stub, depending on relevance, and the category should probably be proposed for deletion. Hiding 19:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubberg, Pt. 3

Umm, yes there are quite a few new ones.

stub template created by when no.of articles type of stubs any problems

[edit] seminary-stub
{{seminary-stub}} User: Kmweber 7 May 1 Seminaries One supercategory of the stub category doesn't exist.
My sfd for the day... Grutness...wha? 9 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
SFD result: Keep. --TheParanoidOne 10:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] judi-stub (redirect to law-stub)
{{judi-stub}} User: Mike Storm 13 May 1 Judicials (Category not created.) Redirected to {{law-stub}}.

[edit] Anti-semitism-stub (deleted)
{{Anti-semitism-stub}} User: Firebug 8 May 0 Antisemitism Category not created.
Sent to SFD. Grutness...wha? 11:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
SFD result: Delete --TheParanoidOne 10:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] film director-stub
{{film director stub}} User: Paulo Oliveira 20 May 46 film directors No hyphens, but genuinely useful.

{{Film director stub}} looks suspiciously non-standard and is also named nonstandardly, without standard redirects.--MarSch 16:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now formatted as per conventions, but we should move it to a better name. {{director-stub}} sounds fine to me. Since it currently holds over 70 articles and takes articles out of the dreaded {{bio-stub}}, we should definitely keep it. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The template {{film-bio-stub}} was created to hold directors, producers, et al. Of course, like {{Film director stub}}, it was created without debate (before I knew of WP:WSS). -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:24, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, June 2005

[edit] {{professor-stub}} / Category:Professor stubs (taken to WP:SFD)

Both created by User:JarlaxleArtemis today and added to Category:People stubs. Category contains approximately 30 articles. --TheParanoidOne 09:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This stub was mentioned in Archive 8. --TheParanoidOne 09:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...it is a very unfortunate name, since the title varies from country to country (here in NZ, it is one step below head of department, and about five above lecturer - I believe the opposite is the case in the US). In any case, anything it covers would almost certainly be covered by {{academic-bio-stub}}, surely? Grutness...wha? 09:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, I think that was the conclusion reached in the archived discussion. --TheParanoidOne 09:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a sidenote, I tried to nominate the hardly used Category:Professors (it has some names in it, but compared to everybody who could theoretically qualify, it's nothing) and its subcategories for deletion a while ago, but failed to convince anybody of its utter uselessness (of which I am still convinced). Academics are better categorized according to academic disciplines, and the same organizational principle is valid for bio-stubs. Uppland 19:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Transformers-stub}} / Transformer stubs

Oh dear. This is a bit of a mess. It seems to have been done by a new user who doesn't yet fully understand how templates and categories work.

  • Created today and added to WP:WSS/ST today (as {{Transfomer-stub}}, so you won't get to the template from there) by User:MistaTee.
  • Template contains just a link to an article.
  • Category contains zero items.
  • Category contains text that would typically appear in the stub template.

--TheParanoidOne 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be a job for SFD Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 01:31 (UTC)
Moving it there now. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed stub deletions

Categories that include others should not be deleted: there will always be articles we can't fit anywhere precisely

[edit] {{Slang-stub}} (*on WP:SFD now)

used on no articles. Duplicates {{Vocab-stub}}. Simply feeds into Category:Slang.

  • Sombody has recently removed this stub from articles because I've used it to tag several articles in the last couple of days. I'm sure that there are easily 50-100 stubs that are slang, not including the slang that in other areas like internet slang. BlankVerse ∅ 09:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed it from the one solitary article that was in its "what links here" list (Munchies, IIRC), because I thought it should have gone somewhere with a specific category, and it was as much a vocab-stub as a slang-stub). If you stubbed more than one, then someone else must have moved the others. If you think it's worth keeping, then feel free to add (*keep) next to this section title, though - there are enough stub types on this list that even if half of them are wanted by someone there will still be five to take over to tfd next week. Grutness...wha? 14:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Cartoon-stub}} (*now on WP:SFD)

I've just been through this, looking at what was in there - what a mess! I emptied out 16 stubs, which now have {{animation-stub}} (6); {{anime-stub}} (3); {{Disney-stub}} (1); {{comics-stub}} (3); {{tvseries-stub}} (2); and {{ad-stub}} (1). It's now empty, and since it plays havoc with the hierarchy (it slices! It dices!), I suggest getting rid of it. Any objections? Comments? Grutness...wha? 08:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree to deleting it. Hiding 13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The title and concept are common enough that it might be recreated at any time, several times. If you agree with that, then it might be wise to keep it around as a redirect (recalling the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" saying), probably pointing at {{animation-stub}}. This allows the semantics of the template to be controlled by association. Courtland 01:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. As the above emptying showed, it links more to animation-stub than to any of the others. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm kind of worried about equating cartoon with animation, but yes, I agree that that's probably the practical solution.Hiding 08:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is a bit of a kludge, but sadly there's no such thing as a disambiguation template! Grutness...wha? 08:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other stub-related discussion

[edit] Category:Education stubs and the situation with education-related stubs in general

This category has no template pointing to it, and no content. It was created on Mar 18 by an anonymous contributor [2]. {{Edu-stub}} is now pointed at category:University stubs. — Instantnood 08:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

edu-stub works on the premise that "edu" is linked to ".edu" which is the domain for institutions of higher learning - universities. It should be renamed to something less generic. --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should it be something like {{Edu-domain-stub}} and a child of {{Compu-domain-stub}}, or maybe {{Website-stub}}? Courtland 17:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the point. I explained the Internet analogy, but that's as far as it goes - those stubs aren't about university domains, they're about the universities themselves. --Joy [shallot]
I'd say {{academia-stub}} would be a decent new name. It should be moved, a bot should replace all instances of current edu-stub with the new name, and then edu-stub should be genericized to include all uncategorized education stuff. Its children categories/stubs would be academia-stub, {{school-stub}}, and {{academic-bio-stub}}. --Joy [shallot] 11:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's a good idea - having just gone through all the school-stubs, I came across several that seemed to be tertiary institutions. "edu-stub" is too vague a name, since it looks at first sight like it covers all forms of education, whereas it's really meant to be for universities and the like. I bet there are lots of high schools marked with edu-stub. A rename is definitely worth considering. Academia-stub's not too bad a name for it, either.

Actually this section's quite a mess, because school-stub are split into UK, US, and other, and edu-stub is split into Canada, Hong Kong and other. I'm wondering whether we sould merge school and edu, then split it again, all according to location. That would be a huge job, though. Grutness...wha? 12:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found it. It's {{General-Edu-stub}} that is used for the generic meaning. D'oh! Very silly. We just need a bot to swap these two groups. --Joy [shallot] 12:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Would it be possible to make {{Africa-uni-stub}}, {{US-uni-stub}} etc, all as subcats of {{edu-stub}}? Looks like there are several countries which could use their own subcat too. Kappa 01:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)