Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/May

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 revised

• Cat:Hydrobiidae stubs 427
• Cat:Beddomeia stubs 73
• Cat:Assimineidae stubs 59

These are currently split between the above-mentioned parent, and the long-deprecated Cat:Mesogastropoda stubs type, which has been awaiting followup action for months and months. This would reduce the size of the problem, and hopefully stimulate a final resolution thereof, if someone would care to run the rule over each of the other families, and determine if they're still viable entities in the latest taxonomy. (BTW, this is on-going fallout from a run of Polbot, which was using data from several taxonomies ago.) Alai (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as the re-sorting seems to be going at...a...snail's...pace...Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak groan. Alai (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Captain Slog, supplemental... Slight oops on the Beddomeia: that's not a family, it's a jolly large genus. Or at least, formerly large, until species extinction kicked it. I've left it as an upmerged template, since genera subtypes seem a little premature. However, I think the following are all viable or thereabouts at the family level:
• Cat:Pleuroceridae stubs 89
• Cat:Thiaridae stubs 74
• Cat:Diplommatinidae stubs 57

That's just counting from the residual mesos. Alai (talk) 20:35, 7 June 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

[edit] Cat:Mid and Outer Solar System asteroid stubs

OK, grab-bag warning. In an increasingly desparate attempt to chip some icecubes off the asteroid-stub-berg, it looks like this will fly (but leaves a massive MB remainder I'm at a loss with). Upmerged templates for significant sub-types such as the Jupiter Trojans, who are probably the majority of these, are probably a good idea. Alai (talk) 14:14, 28 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

[edit] Christian orgs, possible splits

Yes, oversized. Seems to be huge numbers of radio stations. Here's some possible splits:

• Cat:Christian radio station stubs 484
• Cat:United States Christian radio station stubs 436
• Cat:Christian contemporary radio station stubs 98
• Cat:United States Gospel radio station stubs 61
• Cat:Evangelical parachurch organisation stubs 69

Off the top of my head, I think I'd do with just the first two for now, as they seem the most clear-cut in scope. Alai (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support as parent is oversized. Not too happy about splitting radio stations by genre but I suppose as this is a split of Christian orgs we can argue against further by genre splits based on that fact. Waacstats (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They may also be tagged as radio station stubs (geographically sorted or otherwise) -- I haven't checked in detail. So this split of the org tag would not, in the first instance, affect any existing radio station tags, and I would of course urge that for future use they be double-stubbed with both such. Alai (talk) 12:48, 4 June 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

[edit] Cat:Australian radio biography stubs

Only thing that seems to be even nearly viable out of the oversized Aus bios, at 57. Alai (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support if there are 57ish, template currently only has 37 articles though. Waacstats (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't realized there was an upmerged template. I shall report back after I've populated it somewhat further. Alai (talk) 13:06, 28 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 by country of origin

Cat:Diplomat stubs is around 600 and heavily undersorted, as most diplomats are only sorted into the politician stub. Templates for every continent, categories when they reach 60+--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Support and comment - There are definitely well over 60 from Europe. Catscan suggests that 201 of them could simply use {{US-diplomat-stub}}, if such were also created, so I'd suggest creating that as well. An upmerged UK template (39 stubs) may also be useful. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer we started with the "obvious" countries, and upmerged those to continents in the first instance, as and when. If it would seriously inconvenience to go without the continental templates, though, I can just about wear those, too. Alai (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This will sound daft but can I confirm that a British ambassador to the United States would be given a UK template only, i.e not a US template. Waacstats (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Diplomats should be sorted by country of origin, not country od service, like any soccer player or politician.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I expected but I have seen the odd diplomat say for a US diplomat in Brazil given a US-bio-stub, diplomat-stub and brazil-bio-stub. Just wanted to check everyone here was working the same way. Waacstats (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good working principle to me, but Wiki Rule Number One is kinda that there's no accounting for "everyone". Alai (talk) 14:48, 3 June 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 think this qualifies for S1 speedy creation. I believe there are more than 60 articles tagged with Template:Durham-struct-stub, Template:Northumberland-struct-stub, or Template:TyneandWear-struct-stub, and those should all go into a North East England building and structure stubs category. I suppose Template:NorthYorkshire-struct-stub could also be added, though that's already in Category:Yorkshire building and structure stubs. Klausness (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, North Yorks would have to be split up into constituent UAs, as I mentioned earlier. Ceremonial counties don't "nest" into the regions perfectly, so their use isn't really ideal, but it does save some extra templates in most instances. Come to that, the latter should be rescoped as Cat:Yorkshire and the Humber building and structure stubs, with two additional upmerged Lincolnshire UA templates, if we want all the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together properly. Alai (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support the regional category, and slap UK government around the head for not subdividing its regions properly. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do bear in mind that ceremonial counties are, well, ceremonial. The UAs, metropolitan counties and shire counties (if I have my Anatidae entirely row-wise) are the more meaningful divisions, in practical terms. Alai (talk) 14:05, 28 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 North East England building and structure stubs category

[edit] Missing categories for some existing stub templates

Some templates in Category:United Kingdom building and structure stubs don't seem to have their own categories. Before I go ahead and create those, I thought I should check here (even though I wouldn't really be creating new stubs, just the missing categories). The templates are Template:Durham-struct-stub, Template:NorthernIreland-struct-stub, Template:Northumberland-struct-stub, and Template:TyneandWear-struct-stub. Klausness (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! That's because until a stub template is used on 60 or more articles, it doesn't get its own category, per stub creation guidelines. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK.... Well, never mind then.... Klausness (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I do have a followup, though. What would be the process for creating, say, a North East England building and structure stubs category (which would presumably include Durham, Northumberland, and Tyne and Wear)? Would this need to be proposed once there are enough articles to go into it? For example, Category:East Midlands building and structure stubs doesn't have its own template, so presumably all its members are there via one of the more specific templates in the category. Klausness (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be this very process. :) It looks to me like it's there or thereabouts, and it's indeed exactly on the pattern of existing split, so I'd certainly support it as soon as there's 60. (Some stray bits of North Yorks should also be included, which will probably require some additional templates at the UA level.) Alai (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Klausness, you might also like to check out our Speedy creation criteria at the top of the page - S1 describes exactly the sort of situation you were initially talking about. As far as the regional splits are concerned, as long as they are along official regional lines (as shown here), I see no problem with it, other than the usual one that some counties straddle region lines. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged a few more releveant stub articles, and I think there should definitely be more than 60 now. Klausness (talk) 12:20, 23 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 umbrella tpl & cat + upmerged island tpls

Though nowhere near urgent, I note that close to 80 of the 150-odd Cat:Channel Islands stubs are bio-stubs. Might be worth having at least a separate template, and ideally a separate category as well. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Question? Are we going to split the Channel Islands like we do a country (eg ChannelIslands-bio-stub, ChannelIslands-geo-stub) or split it first into its component parts (eg jersey-stub, guernsey-stub). Note that there are seperate wikiprojects for both Jersey and Guernsey (inactive since Jan and only 1 person is a member (the same person, creater of both) but they do exist). Waacstats (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What's happened with the geo-stubs is that there is a ChannelIslands-geo-stub with two redirects to it (Jersey-geo-stub and Guernsey-geo-stub). It might be worth doing the same with the bio-stub (if it is made). As far as the generic ChannelIslands-stub, I thin quite a few of the articles deal with both of the bailiwicks, so there's not the clear split there is with either the people or the places, though similar redirects might be worthwhile there too. Given that the same person seems to be the entirety of both wikiprojects I doubt there'll be any clamouring for separate stub types until they get big enough to be noticed by WP:WSS, and if it's anything like the geo-stub they will be heavily weighted towards Jersey anyway. Grutness...wha? 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Either axis of split sounds feasible to me, so I'd be happy to defer to the one-man band(s). Possibly a slight preference for the "by type" split, since we've already gone that way with the geos. Alai (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with either axis split, the idea of having by type with upmerged jersey-, guernsey- templates is probably the best. Waacstats (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have a slight preference for distinct, upmerged templates (if we go with that axis of split), since it'd avoid the need to have two distinct images in each (currently horribly oversized when taken together, and would be a little indistinct if resized to 20x15 or so). Alai (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. From that, two separate templates both feeding into the one category may make more sense that one with two redirects, since it's unlikely there are many bios relating to both (though there are some Norman counts... they may do). Grutness...wha? 23:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We may wish to keep the "canonical" template as well, for the sake of back-compatibility. Though I have a strong urge to shrink the image sizes, and will likely do so once most are replaced by the more specific ones. (Unless someone wants to get fancy and impale or divide them per bend into a single image...) Alai (talk) 23:54, 15 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 upmerged Korea-art-stub for now

Korean culture related articles are just categorized under {{Korea-stub}}, so I think this template would be good for sorting out among 580 stubs.--Appletrees (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• If a more specific type is viable ({{Korea-art-stub}}, {{Korea-musician-stub}}, {{Korea-actor-stub}}), I would rather support that. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's also {{Korea-cuisine-stub}}. I agree with Peg - it's likely that many if nto most of these could be sorted into subtypes already. We have very few "culture-stub" types, largely because it's a fairly broad and amorphous area and usually easier to use more specific templates. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Korea-art-stub}} is also necessary but Korean tradition such as holidays, aesthetics, or performing arts can't be explained in just Korea or Korean art. --Appletrees (talk) 03:10, 12 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 all including redirect

The recently discovered {{fermanagh-geo-stub}} makes me think that the time might be right for separate upmerged templates for each of Northern Ireland's six counties. Given that there are closing in on 500 stubs, it's not urgent, but it's also likely that most if not all of them would reach the 60 stub level. I'd like to propose:

• {{Antrim-geo-stub}}
• {{Down-geo-stub}}
• {{Londonderry-geo-stub}}
• {{Armagh-geo-stub}} and
• {{Tyrone-geo-stub}},

with separate categories for any reaching 60 stubs (of the form "County Foo geography stubs").

It's plausible that the Londonderry one may have to both be protected and have a (similarly protected) redirect from {{Derry-geo-stub}}, too. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support no feeling wither way regarding redirect. Waacstats (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully if we create both the template and redirect, people will take the hint and leave well-enough alone. But maybe I'm clinging to too much residual optimism... Alai (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Or more likely war over which template is the main one and which the redirect but that could just be my natural pessimism coming through. Waacstats (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - WP standard is to use Co.Londonderry (compromising by using Derry for the city name), though perhaps wording the template's text to read "County (London)derry" would survive without too much mauling. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 8 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

Doesn't seem more than the other day when we were splitting these off from the "rock" type, but they're not considerably oversized in their own right. The following look to be viable:

• Cat:2000s Canadian indie rock album stubs 171
• Cat:2000s indie pop album stubs 121
• Cat:2000s experimental rock album stubs 88
• Cat:2000s post-rock album stubs 66

Indie pop looks fairly straightforward; the Canadian type raises the issue of whether re-splitting by country is something we want to start doing; the last two might be "sideways" moves, rather than strictly subtypes. Alai (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support all the album splits proposed along with these, with the exception of Canadian indie rock (unless it is a recognised sub genre and not just indie albums from Canada). As some one who cleared a load out of the respective parents I feel I better get my shovel out on these. Waacstats (talk) 07:52, 6 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 as proposed

• Cat:2000s East Coast hip hop album stubs 86
• Cat:2000s West Coast hip hop album stubs 79
• Cat:2000s gangsta rap album stubs 74

Oversized parent. Not sure how useful these are likely to be, but they seem at least fairly clear-cut. Might not to do all three at once, given overlap issues. Alai (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a Cat:2000s rap album stubs would be of more use. (I assume -eastcoast-, -westcoast and -gangstarap- would be used for templates. Waacstats (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a separate Cat:rap albums -- or to be precise, it's a mostly-empty category redirect -- I assume on the theory that for genre purposes "rap" and "hip hop" are synonymous. If there's a viable distinction to be had, feel free. Alai (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point scrub that idea Waacstats (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, because there does seem to me to be at least a connotational difference, and several of the narrower subcats use the term "rap", while others go with "hip hop". But I'd at least check with the musos, and look into creating a corresponding permcat, first... Alai (talk) 00:58, 7 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

• Cat:2000s trance album stubs 79
• Cat:2000s indietronica album stubs 74
• Cat:2000s techno album stubs 71
• Cat:2000s house album stubs 61

Or at least, possible, alleged "sub" types, given the twisty maze of genre categories. At any rate, of the (oversized) population of Cat:2000s electronic album stubs, these are counts by genre cats. Also caveats about overlaps between each of these. Alai (talk) 18:25, 5 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.