|
|
Line 203: |
Line 203: |
|
::::Unfortunately most stub articles are started by new editors unaware of any instructions. They usually copy some article that they have found as a model. The Opera Project editors usually work to start class standard. We discourage starting articles that stay permanently as stubs. --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
::::Unfortunately most stub articles are started by new editors unaware of any instructions. They usually copy some article that they have found as a model. The Opera Project editors usually work to start class standard. We discourage starting articles that stay permanently as stubs. --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
:::I'm afraid I'd tend to agree with KZ on the naming issue: neither that or the various other possibilities discussed earlier are at all obvious or natural, either at template or category level. Probably about the only reliable thing to do would be to create ''two'' name stub types, one for operatic works and one for opera-related topics, and turn the existing type into effectively a "container", cum holding pen for articles not yet re-split. I won't claim that's in the least elegant, just that it would avoid mis-tagging by default. Normally we end up finessing this by having a more thoroughgoing split in the first place, as I described earlier... [[User:Alai|Alai]] ([[User talk:Alai|talk]]) 02:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
:::I'm afraid I'd tend to agree with KZ on the naming issue: neither that or the various other possibilities discussed earlier are at all obvious or natural, either at template or category level. Probably about the only reliable thing to do would be to create ''two'' name stub types, one for operatic works and one for opera-related topics, and turn the existing type into effectively a "container", cum holding pen for articles not yet re-split. I won't claim that's in the least elegant, just that it would avoid mis-tagging by default. Normally we end up finessing this by having a more thoroughgoing split in the first place, as I described earlier... [[User:Alai|Alai]] ([[User talk:Alai|talk]]) 02:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are '''updated figures: Opera stub =727, Opera singer stubs = 555''' (I've done a check, removed some misstubbing, and finished reverting Pegship's mistakes). The figures could be reduced by 10 to 20% if the opera editors checked through the articles and uprated those that have now developed beyond stub stage. This would be the most practical solution.--''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 02:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Split of {{cl|Protected area stubs}}=== |
|
===Split of {{cl|Protected area stubs}}=== |
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the June archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.
Is up over 700 making it one of the argest sport cats, I propose to split by playing position as we have done with its southern neighbour American football. Catscan shows the following would be viable
and categories for any of the later that prove to be over 60. Waacstats (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I have with Canadian football stubs in general is that the vast majority of players are in fact from the United States and simply play in the Canadian Football League. Category:American football biography stubs should be sorted by nationality, not league, as should these.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. Firstly, half of all players in the CFL are Canadian and all, or nearly all, in CIS football and Canadian Junior Football League are Canadian. Secondly, Canadian football is not American football so the point is moot anyway; would we not have American fullback stubs because there are Association football fullback stubs? DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is nonetheless true that we should be as clear as possible about what the intended scope is. Are we having a gridiron type, split by nationality? Or are we having two distinct by-sport types? Seemingly, on the basis of the template names, it's the latter, but we should be wary over possible confusion, and possible excess double-stubbing. Alai (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also wonder if some of these are a little over-specialised. Are slotbacks (template should be singular, btw) really career specialists, or do they cross over significantly with tight ends, wide receivers, or other flavours of back? But if these guys are correctly sorted here in the first place, I agree in principle with the split. Alai (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea about these, I saw that they are large and thought how do we split these? and this seemed the best way. Waacstats (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we could also create a -back- template, or something like that, and see if saves on excess double-stubbing. Alai (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised you support the templates this way round, Alai, given that the major component is at the start rather than the middle :) I do too, though, and trust you, waacstats and whoever else to find the correct positional terminology for a sport I know less about than korfball or polo - i.e., nothing at all (Support) Grutness...wha? 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think some of these verge on over specification. We don't even have either {{fullback-stub}} or {{slotback-stub}} though I grant that with the 12th man and other rules differences, Canadian football uses the slotback position more. Still it may be overkill to separate them from the running backs and the wide receivers at the stub level. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought 'slotback' was strictly particular to the Canuck variety -- no? Alai (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In American gridiron, it refers to a position a running back or would start from in some offensive formations, but since American has only 11 players instead of the Canadian 12, its not used as often in American gridiron as it is in Canadian, so not all American football teams have a player specifically designated as such. However see this, this, and especially this for evidence that the slot back is not uniquely Canadian. It's just that the rule differences make it more common in Canadian football. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Learn a new thing every day. Sounds as if it's not going to be a "career speciality" of any sort in the Amfoot- variety, don't know if it is in Canfoot-. If we end up double-stubbing most of the people who'd use it with some other position, doesn't sound like it's worth it, even as an upmerged template. Alai (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we create the templates which will have categories and then see what is left in the main category before creating any other templates. Create the other templates only if there are 30 or so that would not be double stubbed with another canfoot template. How does that sound.Waacstats (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in principle. There may be some positions that could be combined as per Alai and Caerwine (and there are spelling corrections, obviously). DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another over 700 I propose splitting this in the same way as we have with Pennsylvania.
Cat scan shows this would have 300 articles. Other states that I checked that would also be viable are California 89, North Carolina 122, Virginia 177, Illinois 62, Marland 143, Ohio 87, Georgia 148, massachusetts 83. Waacstats (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian ice hockey players
A couple of the by position categories (winger and defenceman) are over 700 and there is undersorting to these from the player category. I propose we split these by decade of birth. templates upmerged except where they reach 60.Waacstats (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion of these stubs at the astro-objects WPJ, the trend of which seems to be that no-one really wants these articles, aside from the couple of people that have been creating them. No sign of a mass trend of deletion or merger yet, however. In the meantime, the mass-created articles are totally swamping the relatively few articles that have meaningful data, that have actually received some attention from editors. From a stub-sorting POV these are in effect, unsortable on any data-driven criteria, due to an absence of said data. Accordingly, I suggest we set up one or more "dumping ground" categories for those lacking some agreed threshold. For example, with no infobox, or no text beyond the form-letter minimum used by the auto-creations, or lacking meaningful infobox/category data, like family and spectral class. I realize this is perilously close to the revenge of the return of "sub-stubs", but it's the only way I can see forward. Alai (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For want of a better idea, I suspect that most of the notavble asteroids have low numbers. Could we create subcategories by number (Category:Asteroid stubs (10001-15000), Category:Asteroid stubs (15001-20000) etc)? using 10k-asteroid-stub, 15k-asteroid-stub etc as templates? Grutness...wha? 02:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be up for that (but it might just be the despair talking). Alai (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tv-stubs are oversized, I think this would squeak to 63 or so. Alai (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Is the template -tech- or -technology-?. Waacstats (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was assuming the former, in line with {{tech-stub}}. Alai (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think i've seen both and was wandering which way round it was. Waacstats (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heading for oversized, we already have two subcats one for the English and one for those born in the 1940s Therefore we could goeither with templates for scotland , wales and NorthernIreland or for continuing the Decade of birth split. I propose we continue along the lines of decade of birth split. templates for each decade, category where it reaches 60. Waacstats (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by-decade. "England" subcats are rather useless, given that it's the numerically dominant component, so becomes oversized almost as quick as the UK- version. Creating the other "home nations" only encourages 'em. Alai (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently proposed tempaltes for film, stage and voice have all reached 60+ propose
be speedy created Waacstats (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cat is oversized, suggest splitting into regional categories Category:Middle Eastern politician stubs, Category:South Asian politician stubs, Category:East Asian politician stubs, Category:Central Asian politician stubs. Sorting will be very easy as all countries have been sorted into national templates.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - we've used Southeast Asia as a regional split before now, perhaps it would be useful here too. I suspect this could be the next equivalent of the geo-stubs "list and regularly count" method - there are a lot of countries quite close to threshold, with several of those asian ones around the 50-stub mark. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, we should be using the UN geoscheme for all sub-continental splits. Alai (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category currently has just over 700 articles so no rush to split yet, some of those around 50 countries could make it to 60 before the category reches 60. That said I'm not necessarily opposed to a regional split.Waacstats (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any officially-defined regions for Mexico, but unfortunately it's oversized, and the states are too small. For the sake of argument, what about using the five broad regions defined here? Alai (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to think about state-specific templates first and seeing whether any reach cat threshold. That might at least lower the overall population a bit. The idea of splitting by broad regions is OK, but as a later resort if the states don't work out by themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't, as I've said. Unless there's vast undercatting and someone can fix that by doing the split but hand, by the numbers (800/30) on that score don't exactly look encouraging. Naturally there would be per-state upmerged template (and no regional templates, topically enough). Alai (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States rail stubs is oversized, this would certainly be viable. I thought we'd laready had this proposed, in fact... (under a slightly different name, or something?). Alai (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Russia stubs is oversized, this is viable at 61. Alai (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While trying to sort Russia-stub, found that this was already created in March as Category:Russia university stubs.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, close enough, I guess. Alai (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah-hah -- {{Russia-university-stub}} was double-catted, and otherwise broken. Fixed now. Alai (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 -- warning, bot at work.
And others to follow -- probably near-alphabetically -- as they become viable. Alai (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sfd bottom
- 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. Could readily be split into the following:
Open to other ideas. Alai (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sfd bottom
Recall these? How we split them by language? They were mass-undone for our trouble. Two axes appear to be viable:
or
I don't mind which, just so long as it sticks this time, and whatever WPJ input we might get is at least vaguely stub-guideline compliant. Alai (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be an idea to speak to the Opera project to see what they want, It was one of them that undid the split I believe. Waacstats (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is one reason I'm highly hesitant about their "input". Alai (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the discussion wherein the opera folks decided on a course and acted upon it (without, I believe, discussing it here).
I have suggested that they come by and give us their 2 pfennige. El Grutness beat me to it. <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Waacstats (of WP:WSS) was invited to take part in the discussion - just I invited you to take part in the current one. When a large number of articles are involved it's essential to talk to all involved. --Kleinzach 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was me who invited you to takee part in the current discussion. Since it's a stub-related issue, the discussions take place here, which is the central site for all stub-related discussions. As I said at the time of my invitation, anyone from the Opera project is more than welcome to join in here to help find the best way to split this category. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion can't take place if no-one informs us. Why did it take 6 days to tell the Opera Project? --Kleinzach 11:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the nature of the "input" (rampant WP:OWNership, bold-faced melodrama, and demands that we ignore all normal stub-sorting criteria), and just how predictable that all was, I think a more pressing question is, why did we bother informing you at all? Alai (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't. I discovered the changes being made and a message was hastily put on the Opera Project. And you quote WP:OWNership! Well, this is certainly owned by you. Nobody else knew about it! --Kleinzach 14:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a remarkable construction on events. I think you might need to also review WP:AGF. Alai (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just informed the Opera Wproject. Hopefully we'll get some clearer idea from them which is the more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous discussion indicated that WP:Opera was most interested in classification by composer, which because few composers will have 60 operas let alone 60 stub articles about their operas, doesn't work well for stub sorting. However there's another axis that might work, though it doesn't match the existing categories.
- Just throwing out another idea. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me, if the operistas would find it useful/acceptable/something they wouldn't unilaterally revert without at least telling us. A bit harder to bot-crunch, for the reasons you mention. Alai (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please have the courtesy to stop changing these cats until the editors at the Opera Project had had a chance to comment. I see some 60 or 70 changes have already been made to opera stubs by Pegship - changing librettists' opera stubs into playwrights stubs etc. Can this please stop? For your information we had a similar situation in December (see here). At that time the Opera Project decided against subdividing the stub tag/cat by language. --Kleinzach 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been sorting out the people in Category:Opera stubs into other more appropriate stub cats - such as {{playwright-stub}} for librettists, {{theat-bio-stub}} for managers, {{composer-stub}}, {{opera-singer-stub}} &c. A librettist is not an opera, thus does not belong in a stub category for operas. Splitting the stubs by language or period creates necessary distinctions for editors who may specialize in those areas, not to mention breaking the stubs cats into workable sizes, which is less likely to deter editors than a 700+ category. The stub system is not "owned" by either the Opera project or the stub project; the Opera project knows opera, the WPSS knows stubs. Trust us. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs are part of a larger system. If you remove the opera stub it means that the article may not be picked up by bot (or manual) sorting and put in Category:WikiProject Opera articles. It then falls off the radar and is not picked up in bot-created cleanup listing etc. (The project has about 5,000 articles so maintenance is demanding.) It also means that the article is picked up by an unrelated project.
- There is little logic behind the changes you are making. Somebody who has spent his whole life in opera administration should not be given a {{theat-bio-stub}} (with subsequent bannering by the unrelated Theatre project). Someone who is only notable as an opera librettist should not be given a {{playwright-stub}} (with a similar result).
- The Opera Project is using the stubs everyday. Why not trust them to decide what is practical? --Kleinzach 06:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The stub-sorting project is using them every day, too - and finding the size of the category to be nearing the point at which it needs splitting. You seem to be a little confused about what stub templates are, though you're right about one thing: stubs are indeed party of a much larger system - larger than just your one WikiProject. There are thousands of stub types covering over half a million articles. They are not for the benefit of any one specific WikiProject; they are intended to be used by all editors across the entirety of Wikipedia. If you want articles to be marked for sorting by a specific WikiProject, you should use a WP talk-page banner assessment template. I find your comment that the article might be in danger of being picked up by another project both faintly concerning - if another WikiProject improves the article, has harm been done? Or are you for some reason jealous that one of your project's articles might be edited by other editors? Grutness...wha? 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's fine as it is. Splitting the stub by language, period, composers or whatever is impractical. It only creates unnecessary maintenance work - and acts as a deterrent to new editors who will be put off by complicated choices. If it ain't broke. . . --Kleinzach 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A stub category with over 800 articles is considered broken because it is too large, and this tye is nearing being broken. That said, a librettist who is not notable for non-operatic work should probably be double stubbed with both playwright-stub and opera-stub (which is about the genre, not just for individual operas, as its parent cat is Category:Opera not Category:Operas. Perhaps {{opera-bio-stub}}/Category:Opera biography stubs as a catchall for the various opera related professions? Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one involved in opera editing has said the stub category is broken. The project has just had bot runs without any related problems. --Kleinzach 06:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Further background: There was a discussion in both Deletion and Proposals about operas by language, in April 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps no-one involved in opera editing said that the stub category was close to being broken because none of them are regularly involved in stub sorting. If they had been, they would probably have proposed some form of split here themselves. But that is beside the point. The point is that from the point of view of stub sorting, this category needs splitting. As such, a split is likely to happen sometime soon. It would be nice if we could find a way to split this that is not going to cause problems for the opera project - and as such it would be useful for us if you could suggest the best possible split, given that a split by individual composers is unlikely to work. From the point of view of usual stub-sorting practice, some splitr that in some way mirrors that of the permanent categories would make most sense, but if a different method is preferable, please suggest it. We have suggested two possibilities - if one of them is to your liking, fine; if a different split is more preferable, tell us what.Grutness...wha? 09:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong see what I mean? Alai (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question & suggestions One of those painful 'operistas' here.;-) I can see why there would be a need to do split some of these large cats, and understand your reasons. I think the question becomes, how best can it be done without sacrificing accuracy and causing unecessary work and/or confusion for either the Stub-sorting Project or the Opera Project. At the moment there are 714 articles in Category:Opera stubs. If all the articles there that were not about a specific opera were removed, that would take it pretty well below the "broken" criteria, even without splitting the operas themselves into subcategories. There are a couple of issues with subcategorizing the operas themselves, especially by composer nationality. First of all, it can lead to inaccuracies re what their nationality actually is given the changes in the map of Europe over the last 300 years. If anything, sub cats by century would be better and clearcut and possibly produce fewer separate stubs for the OP editors to deal with. But even then, you'd have 6 different stubs and starting with the 16th century and the first one would have potenially only 1 member. It's sort of pain for people writing articles on operas. Could we avoid this by having a sub cat for "Opera related bios", e.g. a catchall for the non-singers - librettists, opera critics, opera adminstrators etc. as Caerwine suggested above? Plus perhaps another sub cat for "Opera related topic" to mop up articles about opera companies, organizations, houses, publications, etc.? That would leave the OP with only 4 stub cats to deal with - 1 for individual operas, 1 for opera singers, 1 for opera-related bios, and 1 for all other opera-related topics. I wouldn't find that hard to cope with and actually think it might be an improvement on our current system. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: at the moment the project lists 4 stubs:
- General opera topics: {{opera-stub}} (715 articles)
- Opera singers: {{opera-singer-stub}} (552 articles)
- Composers: {{composer-stub}} (shared with other projects) (480 articles total)
- European opera houses: {{euro-struct-stub}} (very little used by Opera) (276 articles total)
- It's worth noting that many other classical music stubs cats are large, e.g. Conductors (546 articles), Classical composition stubs (513 articles) etc. --Kleinzach 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could get rid of {{euro-struct-stub}} as one used by the OP. Not only is it very generic, it's no help for stubs about opera houses outside Europe.Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, use by the project is negligible. It's a survival from ancient times. I couldn't even get a figure for it. We can de-list it - but it's not an issue. --Kleinzach 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may or may not want to list it on your project page, but opera house stubs certainly should have some sort of -struct-stub tag on them (in addition to opera-stub): bear in mind they're not just of operatic interest, they're very often of local and/or architectural significance as well. Accordingly it's appropriate to have them (also) in a stub category that facilitates those editors as well. Of course, an operahouse-stub (or opera-struct-stub, to be strictly hierarchicalist about it) is also something to be kept under consideration... (There's seem to be about 31 of them tagged as opera-stubs, there might of course be more lurking around elsewhere.) Alai (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a handful more in Category:Theatre (structure) stubs, at least half a dozen in Category:Music venue stubs, and probably more in other places. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessary, nor necessarily the case, that you all be painful. :) Firstly. at the current size level, it's not quite on the "officially oversized list", so if it would be helpful to 'adjourn with a view to medium-term contemplation', I'm not opposed to doing so. OTOH if we're just going to have the same issues arise next time it makes it onto the to-do list, perhaps better that we seize the nettle sooner rather than later. A split between actual-operas and opera-related topics seems like a good first step, though if neither is further subdivided, it does somewhat create the need for a somewhat artificial naming distinction, since by naming convention both Category:Opera and Category:Operas would map onto the existing {{opera-stub}}/Category:Opera stubs names, due to our 'avoiding double plurals' consideration. (We would ideally come up with some generic scheme for such cases, since this isn't the first time such clashes have arisen.) I'd wince a little at Category:Opera topic stubs or Category:Opera-related stubs, Category:Opera-related topic stubs, or something along those lines, but it would be a level of pain I could deal with under suitable medication.
- On by-century: what we'd do is to create templates for all possible/sensible centuries, for the sake of consistency, but for the 'undersized' ones (16th and 17th) we'd "upmerge" them, either to the existing parent, or to some "consolidated" pre-18th (or perhaps pre-19th) category. But I can't comment on whether it's a good or useful split in and of itself. (I know that certainly some scholars of opera are especially concerned with particular periods or particular languages, but that doesn't much help us if that doesn't align with the army-that-we-have-that-we-go-to-war-with.)
- An {{opera-bio-stub}} seems like an unqualifiedly good idea. As it'd have the existing Category:Opera-singer-stub as a subtype, we can cut it some slack on size considerations, and if the worst comes to the worst, upmerge it too, for now. Alai (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict) There would be no point in seesawing articles between two equally large stub categories - the one getting larger while the other gets smaller - that's what would happen if we moved people into a new super-biography stub with {{opera-singer-stub}}. --Kleinzach 15:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that isn't what was proposed. Alai (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VDT: At present we have two large stubs - 'Opera" and 'Opera Singer' . The problem with turning this into three - Opera, Opera-singer and Opera-not-singer-bio - is that there are relatively few non-singer, non-composer biographical articles. --Kleinzach 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be correct about that: that's why I included the caveat about an upmerged template. It's hard to get a reliable count from the category information I have to hand, since it's outdated wrt the recent re-sorting, the bios aren't in any single opera-related permcat subtree, and not all the candidates will have been tagged with opera-stub, anyway. Alai (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the Opera stub category is verging on too large; so changes should be made so it doesn't get to that point. Here's my basic idea of what would be useful.
How's that look? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not enough articles to have to worry about the same thing WP:FOOTBALL does atleast. :D §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as those structure ones go, there should be enough for a category (I reckon just over 60) with the euro- template upmerged to it with just over 30. SeveroTC 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)That's a pretty good scheme at the template level (categories we can judge on a size basis as things go along). The only quibble I'd have is that the euro- one isn't a very useful template: better to replace it with country-specific templates, ideally. (Those can then feed into both a country-related and an opera-related category.) Alai (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to agree with you there, I just wasn't sure what the norm was here at SS. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers
This is a bit of an arbitrary section break as it's getting awfully long to edit easily. (Feel free to remove it). Even so, it might be worth looking at numbers. I've just had a look over the Opera Stub Cat. Kleinzach is right. There are relatively few non-singer bios in there, at most 10. So I don't know how much mileage we'd get out of a an "opera bio" cat. Overall there are about 135 "non-operas" in there - the vast majority are for companies, festivals and houses. There are also a few miscatergorized ones in there which we can remove now. But presumably not all the ones which Her Pegship removed have been restored?. It's also the case, that quite a few of those articles may not be stubs at all - they have been expanded without removing the tag. That would take some time to check, but would further reduce the size. If this project really considers that our current "Opera and opera related stub" cat is too big at about 715 or will soon become too big, what else can be done?
Just have an extra {{opera related-topic-stub}}? Breaking down by century, language, or composer nationality (apart from the inherent problems with composer nationality) leaves the problem of what do you do with the opera-related articles? They won't fit in those sub cats because they're not operas. Would it be the case that they just appear in the current cat but not in the subcats, e.g. 19th century operas, etc.? I don't think §hep's proposal of an {{opera-composer-stub}} is viable or would reduce numbers much, since my understanding is that the current opera stub isn't used for them anyway. There are no stubs at the moment in "Opera" which are about composers. The only other way to reduce numbers significantly is to have some stub that includes both opera houses and opera companies.
Alternatively, if the threshold hasn't been passed and looks like it won't happen for a while, especially if we can naturally prune that category, perhaps we could put off making any changes until it's absolutely necessary. Or at least until the autumn? An awful lot of OP members are going to be away or already are away for the summer. Just a thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a realistic summary of the situation. I've been keeping figures on the ratio of stubs to non-stubs and it has been falling. We are gradually moving articles beyond the stub stage and that should remain the focus of our activity. --Kleinzach 01:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea for the opera-composer-stub was because it was stated that composer-stub has overlap with many projects. This would remove that issue and all articles in Category:Opera composers could be checked to see if the tag fits (of which there are stubs). Not all of my proposal was just to reduce the numbers, but also to sort things a little better. Also, as I proposed all articles that didn't fit into one of the sub-templates would go under the main opera-stub; as is what many other projects do. I hope that explains the point I'm trying to put across. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Opera composers is not exclusive. Yes, we've discussed this Composers/Opera overlap before - but the variability of a composer's involvement with opera means {{opera-composer-stub}} would be impractical. It would just encourage multiple stubbing. A (rediscovered) Mozart would end up with 'opera composer', 'symphony composer', 'piano concerto composer' etc. etc. stubs. --Kleinzach 01:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing that relatively few composers will be notable exclusively for operas, so it may not be very applicable (unless it's used in addition to another composer tag, which doesn't really represent a lot of progress). I do still think that an opera-bio template is a sensible step, but that's not enough for a separate category, and even if it were, it doesn't represent a lot of numerical mileage. Voce, you're exactly correct about the "relateds": if we split all the operatic works (by century or by other means), that would leave only the remainder in the parent, so it solves the question of splitting out those without having to contrive a name for that class. That's not sufficient justification in itself for a split of the works, but it would be a pleasant side-effect, from my point of view at least, if that would itself be useful. If most of your non-works are "organisations" of some sort, an {{opera-org-stub}} would achieve a somewhat similar effect, without creating an arbitrary-sounding "related" category.
- 715 is "large but not oversized" in terms of our quasi-canonical list, and admittedly-arbitrary size threshold. However, if most of Peg's re-sorting efforts get reverted, we may be back there relatively quickly, and it seems odds-on that without some sort of splitting scheme we'll get there sooner or later, as it seems to be a near-universal law for the vast majority of stub types. The most useful split is likely to be one that not just makes not just organisational sense, but that has the most likelihood of being "differentially expanded" by particular groups of editors. I don't know which of the ideas floated here pass that test best, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise one. Alai (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the easiest split would be this: change the scope of {{Opera-stub}} to only cover the operas themselves, and create a new {{Operatic-stub}} or similar to cover all other opera-related stub articles. The idea of a separate template (and possibly category) for opera houses is a good one, too. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with having {{Opera-stub}} and {{Operatic-stub}} is that no-one would be able to distinguish between them. I (and VocediTenore) check the new articles. Only about half the editors know how to use the existing stubs. Give them a choice between 'Opera' and 'Operatic': Editor A will probably use one type and Editor B will probably use the other. This leaves the main editors at Opera Project with hours and hours of donkey work switching around stubs. --Kleinzach 01:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still be a fairly clear and sensible split - and a useful one, too, I would have thought - and the difference would be explained on the templates and categories themselves. As to explaining to editors which one to use, given that most of the editors sorting are either in this project or yours, informing them of which to use shouldn't be too hard a job. If a better name for operatic-stub could be found, though, it would be good - one that make it clear it's not for the works themselves. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately most stub articles are started by new editors unaware of any instructions. They usually copy some article that they have found as a model. The Opera Project editors usually work to start class standard. We discourage starting articles that stay permanently as stubs. --Kleinzach 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I'd tend to agree with KZ on the naming issue: neither that or the various other possibilities discussed earlier are at all obvious or natural, either at template or category level. Probably about the only reliable thing to do would be to create two name stub types, one for operatic works and one for opera-related topics, and turn the existing type into effectively a "container", cum holding pen for articles not yet re-split. I won't claim that's in the least elegant, just that it would avoid mis-tagging by default. Normally we end up finessing this by having a more thoroughgoing split in the first place, as I described earlier... Alai (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are updated figures: Opera stub =727, Opera singer stubs = 555 (I've done a check, removed some misstubbing, and finished reverting Pegship's mistakes). The figures could be reduced by 10 to 20% if the opera editors checked through the articles and uprated those that have now developed beyond stub stage. This would be the most practical solution.--Kleinzach 02:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While far from oversized (360 at the moment), this category is missing a few templates and categories which would be quite useful. Propose {{Europe-protected-area-stub}}, {{Asia-protected-area-stub}} (has category but not template), {{Canada-protected-area-stub}} (already has two potential sub-cats) and {{SouthAm-protected-area-stub}} and categories when past 60.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Continental categories but not templates = a good thing. Support upmerged per-country templates, oppose continental templates. Alai (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I disagree with Alai, having 50 odd templates linking to one category = almost the entire first column = not good. Waacstats (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And systematic double-handling, and confusion caused by subsequent deletion, would be what? Alai (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably just as much mess, but I think unless someone is willing to create all the templates (and yes I did create the last 20 or so asia-politicians to try and clear it) then it is better to have a number of country templates and a continent template than have articles that should be in the category but are not because there is no template for ,say,, oman-protected-area-stub. Waacstats (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that creating all the templates is a bit of a chore. (I'm rarely in the right OS to use AWB, so that isn't much of a help.) The only comfort on that score is that one doesn't need to do it all at once, but either entirely as-needed, or in chunks. Alai (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
China's still something of a mess, due to being an ad hoc mixture of Chinese language and history, and the 2 1/2 modern states. As there are new four PRC-specific stub types, an actual national parent seems only sensible. (I'm not promising to rush to re-sort the Category:China stubs myself, mind you, though it might be worthwhile putting it on the list.) Alai (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 can only 55 of these at present, but since they're the largest by-country component of Category:European sports venue stubs, they're enough to de-oversize it (... for now...), and since many of them won't even be in Europe, I suggest we wink at the shortfall, and trust that it'll grow soon enough anyway. Alai (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sfd bottom
While not oversized by any stretch (currently around 360 articles), I propose a {{NBA-stub}} (or perhaps {{NationalBasketballAssociation-stub}}?) as well as a {{National-basketball-federation-stub}} upmerged template for the time being. The NBA stub is a definite for a category based on first glance.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'90s singles are oversized: as this is how we split the '00s, and indeed just about every album type, I'd think this might well be speediable. "Pop" would almost certainly be viable too, if someone cared to hand-sort (or even inspect the infoboxes). Alai (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything from here on down has passed the five day proposal period. Unless discussion to determine consensus is actively on-going, proposals may be acted upon, to be created, or noted as not approved. Move this marker up as time passes.
Remaining country stubs
Propose the last few country stubs are created with categories and bio stubs upmerged, all regardless of size:
SeveroTC 23:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support templates (with the very minor amendment I made to the Palau template) - but not categories. I'm not convinced this is "the last few" though - I'm sure there are others with geo-stubs that don't have generic stubs. I don't recall a {{NetherlandsAntilles-stub}}, {{Azores-stub}}, {{USVirginIslands-stub}}, {{AmericanSamoa-stub}} or {{NorthernMarianas-stub}}, to start with. And though you may quibble about the definition of "country", several of these are at least as nuch countries as some of those that exist - or indeed, a couple that you've proposed! Grutness...wha? 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (amended 08:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Why "regardless of size"? Alai (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't we have agreement for all foo-stub, foo-bio-stub, foo-geo-stub and foo-politician-stub for all countries (for a given value of country). Either way Support
- I think we in essence do, whether it's even been put that explicitly or so. If we don't, suggest we do so now. Alai (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that overall I tend to agree. Though we do try to make these thing uniform at Xs-stub for the X Islands, we do make one or two exceptions (The Channel Islands, for instance). perhaps The Cook Islands should be another of these. ISTR a similar point was implied at least with the recent rugby league stubs. It will mean reversing some redirects, but that shouldn't be too problematic. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cook Islands stubs
More butterflies
User:Wloveral's been working through the butterfly stubs, and tells me that all families of butterfly bar Riodinidae have their own stub templates. I'd like to propose a {{Riodinidae-stub}} template, with a separate category if and when we can find 60 stubs for it. The template's probably speediable, given that all the other families have similar templates. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to tempt fate, and get the usual barrage of "oppose all stub-sorting!" and "move for change of venue!" non sequiturs such a move seems to cause (when it doesn't simply get tumbleweeds and stony silence), but just in case this turns out to be an "old, bad taxon", we should probably heads-up the lepidopterans via their WPJ. Otherwise, support, and all-due-speedy. Alai (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]