Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/June: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Numbers: reply to Grutness
→‎Numbers: Here are some accurate figs for opera and opera singer stubs
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}}===

Revision as of 02:53, 5 July 2008

Proposals, June 2008

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.

Category:Canadian football biography stubs

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]

Category:New York politician stubs

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]

Category:Asteroid stubs and Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs -- counsel of despair?

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]

Category:Television technology stubs

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]

Category:United Kingdom television actor stubs

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]

Category:Canadian actor stubs

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]

Split of Category:Asian politician stubs

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]

Category:Mexico geography stubs, by region?

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 railway company stubs

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:Russian university and college stubs

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]

Category:Kuyavian-Pomeranian geography stubs, by county

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

Category:Fantasy novel stubs by decade

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

Category:Opera stubs split -- deja vu all over again

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]

Split of Category:Protected area stubs

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]

Category:People's Republic of China stubs

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]

Category:Turkish sports venue stubs

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

Split of Category:Basketball stubs

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]

Category:1990s rock single stubs

'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]

Old business

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:

Country Stub Bio stub Catgeory (no. articles)
 Solomon Islands {{Solomons-stub}} extant Category:Solomon Islands stubs (c.130 + geo subcat)
 Federated States of Micronesia {{Micronesia-stub}} extant Category:Federated States of Micronesia stubs (c.145)
 Marshall Islands {{Marshalls-stub}} extant Category:Marshall Islands stubs (c.60 + geo subcat)
 Palau {{Palau-stub}} extant Category:Palau stubs (c.130)
 Tuvalu {{Tuvalu-stub}} extant Category:Tuvalu stubs (c.60 + geo subcat)
 Vatican City {{VaticanCity-stub}} {{VaticanCity-bio-stub}} Category:Vatican City stubs

SeveroTC 23:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands stubs

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 don't have a general Cook Islands stub type, I haven't done the numbers, but propose {{Cooks-stub}}/Category:Cook Islands stubs pretty much regardless of size, although I think there's a fair few anyhow, including those articles tagged with {{Cooks-geo-stub}}. SeveroTC 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. May as well throw in an upmerged {{Cooks-bio-stub}} and possibly a {{Cooks-politician-sutb}} while we are at it. Waacstats (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. I tried to fix Category:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs and gave up when I realized that no country-level stub even existed!--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me as well. It would probably be useful to have a generic stub template for every country by now, same as there is for geo-stubs (as listed at User:Grutness/Geo-stub list). Most (though not all) would probably reach threshold for separate categories, too (almost all the geo ones have now). Grutness...wha? 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the logic behind {{Cooks-geo-stub}}, I have to say that {{Cooks-stub}} reads... oddly. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have the canonical template at {{CookIslands-stub}}, with a redirect. Alai (talk) 23:09, 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]

{{CookIslands-stub}}//{{CookIslands-bio-stub}}//{{CookIslands-politician-stub}} then. I'll take the geo- template to SfD. SeveroTC 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

Category:Television biography stubs

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.
Close to oversized I propose splitting out a Category:Asian television biography stubs and Category:European television biography stubs fed with as many country specific tempaltes as people want and then {{continent-tv-bio-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose of continental templates (for the usual reasons); support everything else -- nay, speedy. Alai (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone wants to create all the templates I have no problem with that, if I start I'll get bored after 4 or 5. Waacstats (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why it's only a weak oppose. :) If you need complete coverage to start sorting, I do sympathise for the need as a matter of practicality. Alternatively, you could start with the most numerous, and then create some more on-the-fly... In fact. now that I think of it, let me crunch some numbers on the last db dump, which finished building here overnight: Ireland 15, T&T 13, Philippines 11, New Zealand 10, Mexico 9, Pakistan 8, HK 7, Argentina 5, Germany 4. (Results probably somewhat wonky due to lack of a consistent structure under Category:Television people, but ought to be more or less safe underestimates.) Alai (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Chemist stubs

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.
On its way to oversized propose the usual suspects

Waacstats (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split oh historian-stub

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.
Category is around 800, definitely could use some attention, though I don't have any specific numbers or suggestions.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Government occupation stubs

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 estimate that about 77 gov-stubs are for "gov-jobs" (rather than bios). Parent is (still) oversized. Alai (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...a natural subtype of the largish {{Job-stub}}, too. Support. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Togo geography stubs, by region

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 formatted on the To Do list.
650 stubs in this category. Most are from the Kara Region but gradually the other towns and villages in other regions will be added to. I'd upmerge them for now. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:2000s power metal album stubs

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.
The metal albums are relentless! Only plus side is, the 18 months the crapflood of all these album stubs will be divided into Category:2010s album stubs, which it's remotely conceivable might take the load off for a while! Or not! At any rate, 73 of these. "Doom metal" is following along, currently at 53... Alai (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support also template and (and cat if it creeps over 60) for doom metal. (I recently sorted these and wouldn't be surprised if Doom goes over)Waacstats (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:United Kingdom pre-Reformation bishop stubs

UK-bishops are oversized. I think a large chunk are pre-reformation, though it's hard to be sure, since the contents of the permcat are, basically, completely nonsense. Should be possible to busk it from the dates. (The nonsensical permcat is also scoped as England and Wales, but I don't see any point in not going with the broader scope.) Alai (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I seem to recall having a similar problem when I tried to sort them before.Waacstats (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just one question, template name? {{UK-prefeformation-bishop-stub}} or similar. Waacstats (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything better, to be honest. Other than spelling it correctly, that is... Alai (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My excuse is I did a Maths degree and never needed to spell. Anyway {{UK-prereformation-bishop-stub}} I get most things right second time around. Waacstats (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shouldn't any such pre-reformation stubs already be using {{UK-RC-bishop-stub}}/Category:United Kingdom Roman Catholic bishop stubs? At only 97 stubs, that existing stub type is hardly going to be overwhelmed by sorting through the parent. Plus the existing {{ChurchofEngland-bishop-stub}} should also serve to diffuse most of the rest. The British bishops need sorting into the existing subtypes at the moment, not creating a new subtype. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, which are which? Tagging a pre-ref Eng bish as either of the above is going to be see as at best POV, and at worst causus belli for a full-scale revert-and-flame war. (Admittedly the Scottish case is rather different, on which basis it might be argued that restricting it to England might be the better plan.) IMO much better to treat it as a de facto distinct denomination from either, serving double duty wrt to historical period. Alai (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the existing stubs marked with {{UK-RC-bishop-stub}} or {{ChurchofEngland-bishop-stub}} doesn't seem to indicate a problem with revert wars if we use the former to indicate those who acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope and the latter to indicate those that acknowledged the supremacy of the King. Nor does structure of the existing permcats indicate that it would be a problem either. The desire for the difference between pre- and post-Reformation appears to be a desire to organize the categories for the individual bishoprics existing at the time of the Reformation so to emphasize the continuity of each despite the change in the acknowledge supreme earthly authority, not any disputes over whether the pre-Reformation bishops were Catholic. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the point: both sides claim(ed) ownership not just of the church itself, in England, but of the tag "catholic". Hence among other things, the insistence on (and dislike of the insistence on) "Roman" as a qualifier and modifier, in some parts. Just as we have Category:Early Church bishop stubs, rather than tagging these types with RC- or Orthodox- on some mysterious basis. If these get sorted on the basis you suggest I'm not going to object, but it certainly won't be anything I'm tackling myself. Alai (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian art - need a more generic stub

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 Italy-art-stub.
I've been coming across various articles about paintings and art collections in Italy that have been tagged with {{Italy-artist-stub}} to indicate a connection with art in Italy because there isn't a {{Italy-artist-stub}}. I've now switched them to {{Italy-stub}} but given that we have various "specific" Italian art stub types, it would be nice to have a more "generic", "catchall" stub. I'd guess there's probably 15-20 articles in the general {{art-stub}} and {{Italy-artist-stub}} categories, and I'd guess 40 or more generic Italy stubs that would fit. There could be scope for art stubs in other countries as well? FlagSteward (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a double-upmerged template until such time as the numerosity situation becomes clearer. Alai (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Tamil Nadu geography stubs: regional lumping?

Another oversized Indian state, with "too many" districts: I can't find anything with more than 40 articles. If I can find some regions to upmerge to that I can get away with... The TN article mentions the regions of Chettinad and Tirunelveli, as well as four Tamil_Nadu_Police#Zones. These could stand to be better-defined, though. Alai (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those regions seem to be subdivisions of the districts and I don't think the Police districts are much use as I can't find any where saying which districts fall where. It may be a case of templates for each district and hoping something reaches 60 sooner rather than later unless someone can come up with something better. Waacstats (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antarctica geography stubs do-over?

The East/West split that was apparently agreed earlier doesn't seem to be happening. I certainly won't be making it happen, since it doesn't align to any permcats, at least with detectable populations. Should we be looking at this again? Alai (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me for that (though you already knew that - see the psych stubs split below for details). Problem is, of course, that we're veering into "Unrecognised states" territory with these - though the boundaries of Ross Dependency are well-enough agreed for a separate permcat, and the Antarctic Peninsula also has one, most regional claims are overlapping and trying to split this any other way looks fairly unappealing (arbitrarily carving off sectors according to longitude, perhaps?). Perhaps Antarctica is the one area where dividing things by type of feature does make some sense, though I'd like to think that another way is possible. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was a proponent of the East/West split in the first place, I guess I should attempt a restubbing to see if its salvageable. Early efforts look promising, just tedious, and likely to affect any effort to sort these. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Header fix: oops. Meant the geos, of course.) The only sub-region that seems to have a viable permcatwise population is the Category:Ross Dependency, but that gets into the realm of political claims, and isn't even contained within either of the above. Landformwise looks pretty straightforward, and might even make sense in some cases -- I bet there's a lot of double-stubbing of the glaciers, for example. However, if the efforts of our brave volunteer pay off, I'm happy just so long as it makes it off (or at least down) the list. Alai (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with Ross Dependency is that it is split between East and West Antarctica. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one of the problems, as I mentioned. Alai (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been whacking at this as fast I ought to, but the East Antarctic stub is now large enough for a category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s rock album stubs subtypes

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.

In the latter case, I'm taking the liberty of inferring "folk rock" from simultaneous presence in a "rock" stub type, and a "folk" permcat... Alai (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems a reasonble inferance.

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Contract law stubs

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.
70 of these by category. Parent is traditionally (and currently) oversized. Alai (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Template:Sfd bottom[reply]

Category:Psychology stubs: subtypes by branch, or thereabouts?

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 originally proposed, and get on with the Antarctica stubs already!.

There's also the previously-mooted prospect of a Category:Psychiatry stubs, which would be populable on the face of it, at 176 according to the cat-hierarchy: unsurprisingly, though, about 114 of those are also candidates for clin-psych.

I'd propose to start with Category:Social psychology, since that has has the largest number of direction categorisations, so seems the safest bet, and work from there. Alai (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's bound to be some overlap, butt I'd say go for it. I'd be tempted to make the perception category a Category:Perception and psychophysics stubs, since the two are so closely allied, but then I'll admit to bias on that point. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not an obvious parent in the permcat hierarchy for those two, so perhaps you should be rebiasing those, in the first instance... I skipped Category:Cognition as ludicrously broad in categorical terms, and Category:Cognitive psychology turns up not in "branches", but in "theories". Is that a better axis? Search me. If they happened to get a moment in between sorting Category:Antarctica stubs (hint, hint), perhaps someone familiar with this area could examine the permcats for sanity of mapping to various stub options... (hint, hint, hint!) Alai (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't look at me - I've been too busy shovelling out some of the backlog at SFD :) And until someone explains this East/West Antarctica business definitively to a part of the world than never uses those terms (i.e., everywhere outside the US), I'm not likely to sort much there... Grutness...wha? 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Maybe we should be looking at a split of the Antarctics that does actually conform to the permcats, then... Alai (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely agree to that - {{SouthOrkney-geo-stub}}, {{SouthShetland-geo-stub}}, {{RossDependency-geo-stub}} and {{AntarcticPeninsula-geo-stub}} would all match the permcats and make far more sense as far as I'm concerned. But this is all getting to be a bit too much of a digression, no? Grutness...wha? 06:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK you two, so what about the psych stubs?? Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) uppity new admin[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Anime and manga stubs subtypes

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.

Another long-term oversized type, that I submit we have to bite the bullet on sooner or later. Alai (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the 1990 & 2000 cats should be Category:1990s manga series stubs etc or am I miss reading this somewhere. Assuming no miss reading Support Waacstats (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, "series" doesn't appear in the by-decade permcats. I don't know if there's any particular logic to that. Alai (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'll support anyway. Waacstats (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Head and neck stubs

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.
To help deal with the Category:Anatomy stubs -- again, all other/betters ideas also sought. No apparent problem with size here: I see over 100, plus would supercat Category:Eye stubs and Category:Dentistry stubs, I assume. Alai (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skull stubs were approved back in October 2006; does this help? your archivist, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Medical term stubs

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 count 53 of these, and the med-stubs are, is as traditional, huge. Anyone find another 7 for me, advocate winking at the shortfall, or think of a better idea? Alai (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support idea but I know we have a Category:Martial arts terminology stubs so are we using term or terminology in any other categories. Waacstats (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The permcats in both instances appear to use "term", so I'd go with that. Alai (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Pharmacology stubs subtypes

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.
This is a long-term-oversized stub type with huge and twisty category tree that I'm going to propose tackling in a fairly gradualist manner, so as to try to minimise overlap, and incoherent transitivity of the category tree.

I may have more to follow during the run of this proposal, but if anyone else has any ideas, I'd love to hear 'em. Alai (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest getting WP:PHARM project support for this 1st :-) David Ruben Talk 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've been notified. Last time I checked, their only comment was to quibble about the link being broken (in a fairly obviously fixable manner). Beyond that, qui tacet consentire videtur. Alai (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:2000s pop album stubs subtypes

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.
Yes, oversized! What, you guessed? Some possibility to re-sort s'more to Category:2000s pop rock album stubs and to Category:2000s indie pop album stubs, but those won't hold us for long, if at all. In due course I suspect we'll be needing:

If they can't be made viable in the short-term, I may have to settle for upmerged templates. Alai (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support as upmerged templates till they reach 60. Waacstats (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom


Category:Malabar geography stubs

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.
The Kerala-geos are oversized, no single district appears to be over threshold. Suggest upmerged templates, feeding into historic regions, starting with this one. Alai (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of Kerala seem to suggest there are 14 districts, atleast one of which must be oversized (800/14=57ish). So maybe upmerged templates for each district and some hand sorting will find atleast one district over 60. otherwsie we will have to go with Malabar. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I was simply going by infobox data, which must be somewhat sparse. Sounds like if someone hand-sorts we'll be, well, sorted... Alai (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Hardware stubs

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 re-proposed as sport-equipment-stub.
I was working on harness and noticed it had an inappropriate stub category. I looked at the list of stub types and found nothing that would group hardware, general misc equipment or gear together under one category of stub. This category could be further subdivided when appropriate, but other technology based stub types seem inappropriate for this type of article. I'm not hardover on the title but I think this one is a good top level name. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the article is now a disambig, and the category has been deleted twice does not fill me with high hope, I must admit. Can you scope this in such a way that it a) corresponds to a permcat, b) would be populable, given the "numerosity" objective, and c) isn't too vague or broad for any practical utility? Alai (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, we'd use the fairly vague {{Tool-stub}} for this sort of thing, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like those articles would actually be in the Category:Tools permcat hierarchy, but rather Category:Equipment. An {{equipment-stub}} would be even more tremendously vague, however. Alai (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm not wrapped around the axle about the name, as long as it's reasonable of course. Equipment, hardware, or something of that nature which is missing from the the Stubs list. I just can't find anything that I can use that isn't a big stretch. I don't care if it's been deleted, maybe those folks didn't look hard enough to find articles, I don't know. Why is there a technology list and then an Other technology list? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The permanent category was deleted. There's no "numerosity" requirement for permcats, so if was deleted for lack of use, it must have been entirely unused. But more to the point, I'm still not seeing either the need, or the utility. Other technology? I don't get the context. Alai (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I retract my request. Too many naysayers. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I didn't say "nay", I said, "please explain further how we could sensibly do this". You didn't. Alai (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd bottom

Category:Smoking stubs

Sub-stubs could subsequently be created for tobacco, pipe smoking, etc. My use case here is Dokha, which I've just created. -- -- Earle Martin [t/c] 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there enough of them to warrant even one stub type? There used to be a stub type for this a couple of years ago, but IIRC it was deleted as being virtually totally unused. I realise WP has grown a lot since then, but I still wonder just how useful this would be. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was {{tobacco-stub}} which was itself a expansion of {{cigar-stub}}. It was deleted back in April 2006, before we started having upmerged stubs as a possibility. If {{smoking-stub}} were to also include cannabis, I think it would have enough to support an upmerged stub template to Category:Psychoactive drug stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... that might work. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's in line with the permcats, certainly, though of course MJ isn't always smoked, so it's not a completely clean split by substance. But certainly an upmerged template seems like a good plan. Alai (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like {{recreational-drug-stub}} might be a cleaner and wider-scoped solution? That would certainly have close to the numbers for its own category, and could even conceivably take Category:Tea and coffee stubs as a subtype. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...then again, it looks like there is no Category:Recreational drugs, so perhaps that's a non-starter, sadly. Grutness...wha? 12:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly the gist of the discussion when we were splitting up the pharm-stubs, there was strong opposition from the nearest-neighbour WPJ about anything that even had a whiff of a "recreational drugs" vs. "pharmaceutical medicines" demarcation. Alai (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the perm cats, it looks like one possibility might be Category:Medicinal herb and fungi stubs (permcat Category:Medicinal herbs and fungi) as a child of both Category:Pharmacology stubs and Category:Plant stubs, though the permcat needs work too. By the way, it also looks like Category:Hallucinogen stubs is in need of a rename to Category:Psychedelic, dissociative and deliriant stubs to match the change in name several years ago of its parent from Category:Hallucinogens to Category:Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd one: looks as if the one was moved shortly after the other was created, making them a mismatch for almost their entire joint existence. I support hauling this off to SFR, unless someone can think of some technical excuse, or wishes to boldly IAR, for renaming. Alai (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Joint existence"? Hm. In any case, yes, a rename looks like it might be necessary. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As in "the period of time when both were extant". Alai (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/June&oldid=223654818"