Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/April

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create as sex-industry-stub &c

Sub cat of both Cat:Occupation stubs ({{Job-stub}}) and Cat:Sex stubs ({{Sex-stub}}), currently 165 articles assessed as stubs per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Sex_work_work_group#Recognized_content all of which fall completely into both categories, new active project is working on creating and assessing more. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category name should probably be Cat:sex worker stubs, to correspond to the permcat, assuming I have the right one. (Template name seems fine as proposed.) Alai (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, with category name as suggested by Alai. 165 different articles on different sex occupations? My upbringing has been more sheltered than I thought... Grutness...wha? 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoooah... back up there. the majority of those 165 articles are bio-stubs! These aren't about sex occupations at all - they are about people working in sex-related industries. Perhaps a {{sex-bio-stub}} is needed instead, with somee carefully worded caqtegory name to follow suit. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The same category name might be the most appropriate, anyway; that's probably a more appropriate template name, though. This is going to be a "sensitivity required" area in application, though: as far as glamour models, porn actors and strippers are concerned, "sex worker" would probably be seen as something of a euphemism-downgrade... Alai (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the proposed category name is that it does sound like it's about the occupations themselves. But as to what a good title for it would be, I haven't a clue. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's admittedly a "feature" of our convention to avoid double plurals that it eliminates any distinction in the permcat space between cat:X and cat:Xs. (Which I suppose is why we ended up with such a tortured alternative to {{cl|ship stubs.) But the contents of Cat:sex workers is what we're talking about here, so I think we should stick with it. (In this case, Cat:sex worker is just a redirect to the same thing, so there no manifest ambiguity, just a possible lack of optimal clarity.) Alai (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The above points are valid. I've asked some of the project members to stop by here. We need to get straight what we're dealing with. The project rejected the name "sex worker" as being too restrictive and too focused on bios; but you're correct that is where the current perm-cat structure would take you and where most of the stubs are. On the other hand, it is limiting/awkward for the project to have to place stubs in either a bio focused cat or continue to dual list in Cat:sex stubs and Cat:occupation stubs; which was kind of the point to this proposal - avoiding dual listing in the generic cats that is. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As the individual responsible for most of the tagging to date, I acknowledge that most of the existing stubs are bios, because the bios are what have been in the first listed categories of the groups' parent category. But I think I count 77 stubs which are variations on "Prostitution in (X)" articles. If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work work group/to do, you'll see several more which haven't yet been created. I think we can probably agree to tagging only those which are not bios with the main stub. The others could be tagged with a "sex-industry-bio" stub, instead. I think there are enough of them as well. And, for what it's worth, there is still a lot of tagging to be done, so there should be several more articles appearing in the next few days as well. I'll work on the tagging kinda concertedly over the next few days to help people get a better idea of what we're dealing with here. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the name (and scope) Cat:sex industry stubs? That also corresponds to a permcat (Cat:sex industry -- surprise!), would be inclusive of bios and job-stubs (and more besides). Still would require "sensitivity of application", however. If we just want bios, but don't want to restrict it to "workers", Cat:sex industry biography stubs would be within the normal bounds of such generalisation (after the pattern of the sport-bios, etc). `Alai (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion and I'd support it as a name, though again we have to be careful with "sensitivity of application", as Alai puts it. For example, if the article on Alfred Kinsey were a stub (no double-entendre intended), then it would make sense to categorise it in here, though I doubt anyone would describe him as working "in the sex industry". Grutness...wha? 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He'd be more in the way of a "sex-bio-stub", if we were to make things as general as that. I'm not sure how great either Cat:sex biography stubs or Cat:sexuality biography stubs would be as names.... Alai (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Cat:Sex industry stubs is the way to go. I missed that permcat when I started this, though I had known once upon a time that it was out there. As for sex industry biographies, if there are enough writers maybe it would be a good idea to create a template {{erotica-writer-stub}} to feed into Cat:Sex industy stubs and Cat:erotica writers via a stub cat - that might solve at least part of the "sensitivity" concerns. I agree with Alai though that a Kinsey-type stub should probably be something more general - sex research isn't really part of the "sex industry" as one would likely normally conceive it, even if the researchers get paid for their work. Since our task force isn't really handling those, I don't really know whether they need stub cats and templates or not. Probably should leave that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that while we do try to follow permcats when they're systematic (and one hopes, sane), they're not by any means set in stone (and in some cases, are considerably more ad hoc and unsystematic than stub types), so if there's a clear need for a slightly different scope, that works sensibly with other article-space categories... Alai (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I could agree to the "sex industry" type for both the biographical and general articles. My one major application qualm would be to the articles about notable people's mistresses, as many people would not find them to be particularly involved in any sort of "sex industry". Don't know at this point if a {{courtesan stub}} would have enough to justify it, but it might be one of the least objectionable phrasings for such subjects. Would also possibly agree to other templates, depending on how many stubs we actually find. Still working on that, though. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cat:royal mistresses are under Cat:courtesans and prostitutes, which is under Cat:sex industry, which is I think slightly misleading -- but that's the category system for you. As far as living people are concerned, definite BLP concerns area. Alai (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

...and if such a stub were created, it would of course be {{Courtesan-stub}} (with a hyphen :) Grutness...wha? 01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create

Oversized; only feasible split seems to be by type of composition:

• Cat:symphony stubs 93
• Cat:concerto stubs 86
• Cat:chamber music composition stubs 85
• Cat:sonata stubs 82
• Cat:solo piano piece stubs 76

Due to overlap issues, we may not want to create all of these, however. One might have thought that by-era was a way to go, but categorisation by date seems to be near-nonexistant. Alai (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support symphony, concerto, and sonata as the most well-defined forms, plus easy to sort since the piece usually includes the word "symphony", etc. in the title. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create

• Cat:Montérégie geography stubs 80
• Cat:Estrie geography stubs 70
• Cat:Abitibi-Témiscamingue geography stubs 69
• Cat:Bas-Saint-Laurent geography stubs 67

Oversized. Alai (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy support per the odd precedant here and there. Waacstats (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Do these already have templates, because if not, some of those names look pretty difficult. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've come across. Beyond acute-free redirects, I'm not sure what to suggest: possibly additional redirects from {{Abitibi-geo-stub}}, {{Témiscamingue-geo-stub}}, and(/or) the like. At the risk of increasing the risk of possible confusion between Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi-Témiscamingue... Alai (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create

These are oversized. If we split by year, 20th and 21st century subtypes are immediately viable. Alai (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I assume by year you mean by decade, the same as with films. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, categorywise, by century, initially. Templates at decade granularity might be the forward-looking thing, though. Alai (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create

We've had a separate category and template for European archaeology stubs for some time now, and the main Cat:Archaeology stubs is climbing past 500 - it might be time to consider making equivalent templates, at least, for Asia, Africa, Oceania, South America, and North America, and possibly also for the major sub-regions that stubs tend to be split into. I suspect that the Asian ones in particular will be well over the category threshold, too.

• {{Africa-archaeology-stub}}
• {{Asia-archaeology-stub}}
  • {{MEast-archaeology-stub}}
• {{NorthAm-archaeology-stub}}
  • {{CentralAm-archaeology-stub}}
  • {{Caribbean-archaeology-stub}}
• {{SouthAm-archaeology-stub}}
• {{Oceania-archaeology-stub}}

The only bugbear in this scheme is that we have considerably overlapping stubs for Pre-Columbian studies, which might have to be looked at with regard to North, Central, and South American archaeology types. Any overlap between Mesoamerica-stub and CentralAm-archaeology-stub in particular is likely to be significant. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm - looks like we already have the South American one. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - I've posted a note at WP:Mesoamerica, so hopefully we'll get some input on this from there. Grutness...wha? 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem especially urgent to me -- at least in the have-you-seen-the-todo-list-lately grand scheme of things, but would be reasonable enough. What do WP:ARCHAEO (there's a mnemonic shortcut for ya) have to say about it? Alai (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question - I'll post a note there too. It doesn't seem too urgent but that's largely because there's massive undersorting - a lot of the articles in the struct-stub hierarchy would be better in the archaeology stubs category; splitting this up would allow that to happen and would be a preemptive measure for the almost certain eventual split. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Alai (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for this change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I am also puzzled as to why you wouldn't use the Mesoamerican stub designation instead of trying to force an arbitrary classification (Central vs. North America) on these articles. Madman (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all that's being proposed is to break up the generic Cat:archaeology stubs into more manageable subcats.

As far as any overlap in the Americas goes, I don't think there is necessarily a problem of Mesoamerica vs Central America. Most usually, cental american archaeology refers more to the study of what has been (inadequately) designated the Intermediate Area, ie the portion of lower Central America between the "classical" Mesoamerican cultures in the north and down to Panama and Colombia in the south. So a putative CentralAm-archaeology-stub could refer to this area, while {{mesoamerica-stub}} can retain its current focus.

From an archaeological point of view it might be appropriate to follow designated cultural/archaeological area divides (Mesoamerican, Macro-Chibchan, Andean, Amazonian, Arctic, Woodlands, etc) rather than purely continental ones, since as often as not these zones are studied separately. The same could go for Africa, Asia etc. But I s'pose given there aren't really any other groups besides WP:MESO organised to manage areas of pre-Columbian archaeological focus, it might be a moot point. If you do need to break out the overall stub category, for the Americas at least Nth, Sth, Caribbean, Mesoamerican, and Central (as above) wld do. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CJLLW is right (no pun intended). Though the current system may not seem to be broke, the number of stubs is growing fairly rapidly, and unless there is a split of the current system, preferably by continent, we will soon have a main category that is too large to be confortably used by editors. Europe's archaeology stubs have already been split out for that reason. Creating separate templates for the other continents is simply a preemptive measure so that when the time comes it is easy to split out the other continents in the same way (and even then a case could possibly be made for making a halfway measure category for The Americas as a whole). As far as Mesoamerica/Central America is concerned, the main reason for suggesting this split on a per-continent/"standard region" basis is that that is the way other stub types are split, and it thus makes it easier to allocate parent categories (Central American archaeology stubs would, along with its equivalent geography and biography stubs etc, be a subcategory of Cat:Central America stubs, for instance). As such, it's more ammeasure for uniformity than anything else, though i do realise that stub types relating to cultural history such as these may well overlap or form their own natural subclassifications. in the case of mesoamerica, given its scope, it might be a natural subcategory of Cat:Central American archaeology stubs in any case, since its range is predominantly contained within the area usually thought of as Central America (Mexico being the main concern). Grutness...wha? 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create

I've been having a look through Cat:Geographical term stubs, which is rapidly rising again, and it looks like a lot of the strubs in there are for administrative land divisions and other geopolitical terms. There are plenty for a template, and possibly enough for a category ( a few of them would include: Administrative centre, Agency (country subdivision), Amalgamation (politics), Autonomous city, Autonomous district, Autonomous republic, Bairro, Baladiyah, Barony (country subdivision), and Census division). If a better name can be found for the template, that's fine, too, though the one listed above will do at a pinch. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create

Doing some cleanup involving addition of categories and stubs where appropriate, I've found a requirement for this stub. WP currently has stubs covering midfielders born in previous decades, but would now seem to require one to cover 1990s births. Admittedly, this probably only currently covers those born in 1990, but it will be required sooner or later. CultureDrone (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well speedy creation of the template, on the existing pattern. When you say "need", do you mean there's already 60 of these larval-form whippersnappers^W^Wfine sportspeople? If so, speedy the category as well, otherwise, wait and upmerge the template for now. Alai (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a relative newcomer at templates so what does 'upmerging templates' actually mean ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's where you have a stub template, but not it's own category, feeding into pre-existing categories instead. We usually use them when stub types don't reach 60 articles, as they prevent double-tagging, while keeping the number of stub categories down. Severo^TC 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Sorry for being cryptic. Look, for example at {{England-footy-midfielder-1900s-stub}}, etc. Alai (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.