Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2019/November

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Proposals, November 2019

Speedy creation (S1): New Zealand Paralympic category

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:New Zealand Paralympic medalist stubs‎ (for Template:NewZealand-Paralympic-medalist-stub), now in use in 64 articles.

Simeon (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

- Support per nom.Her Pegship (really?) 21:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

- - Thanks, have updated the template. - Simeon (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Create Canadian parliamentary group 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 do not create; insufficient qualifying articles.

Rationale: Per discussion with administrator Bearcat, et al., elsewhere, we have a number of parliamentary groups/technical groups (chiefly in the Senate of Canada) that are notionally both (a) non-partisan and (b) non-election-contesting. As such, they're not strictly a political party, though they are a parliamentary caucus (or a parliamentary party). Thus, I propose creating the Canadian parliamentary group stubs stub sorting category and re-sorting the applicable non-political party caucuses into this category. Note, too, that in the House of Commons, we could/would re-sort Democratic Representative Caucus and Quebec debout (short-lived spinoff from the Bloc) into this new stub sorting category. Note, too, this would be in keeping with our existing naming conventions such that similar stub sorting categories could be added as needed for other countries. Doug Mehus T·C 16:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Presumably this would be a sub-cat of Category:Canada politics stubs, and the permcat would be Category:Parliamentary groups in Canada. Are there 60+ articles that would qualify for this stub type? Her Pegship (really?) 19:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Pegship, 60+? Probably not. If you include historical parliamentary groups, there's probably close to 30-40, but still short of the 60+ requirement. Still, being tagged as a "Canadian political party stub" is not correct.

Would you, alternatively, support an upmerging of the parliamentary groups in Canada to Category:Canada politics stubs? Doug Mehus T·C 19:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Pegship, Or, alternatively, a renaming of Category:Canadian political party stubs to Category:Canadian political party and parliamentary group stubs? Doug Mehus T·C 19:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus - If there aren't enough to meet the stub quantity guidelines, I'm all for upmerging them to Category:Canada politics stubs. Her Pegship (really?) 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Pegship, Thanks. I wasn't sure if individual pages were permitted at Category:Canadian politics stubs. Is that something I can do boldly, or do the stub sorting category changes require consensus? Doug Mehus T·C 23:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus - Not sure what you mean about individual pages... I'm guessing that the proposal ends up with {{Canada-parliamentary-group-stub}}, upmerged to Category:Canada politics stubs? Her Pegship (really?) 06:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Vermont gubernatorial election 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 no consensus.
A search for the phrase "Vermont gubernatorial election" within the list of articles in Category:Vermont election stubs reveals that the phrase occurs 67 times, meaning that there are 67 stub articles about Vermont gubernatorial elections. Because the common threshold of articles necessary to merit the creation of a stub category is 60, this suggests that creating a subcategory of Category:Vermont election stubs specifically for stubs about Vermont gubernatorial elections could be in order. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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 'Australian rules biography, 1900s birth stubs' by year

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.
Currently, Category:Australian rules biography, 1900s birth stubs has over 1000 articles in it. I propose that it be split by year of birth (1900-1909).

1900: 97 pages
1901: 98 pages
1902: 96 pages
1903: 99 pages
1904: 95 pages
1905: 110 pages
1906: 104 pages
1907: 103 pages
1908: 125 pages
1909: 123 pages

Given the scope of the pages to edit (all 1000+), I also propose that DannyS712 bot implement the sub-categorization if this proposal passes. In comments, please specify if you support the stub templates but not the bot edits. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support split and bot request. Her Pegship (really?) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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 'Russian football defender, 1990s births stubs' by year

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.
Currently, Category:Russian football defender, 1990s births stubs has over 1000 articles in it. I propose that it be split by year of birth (1990-1999).

1990: 105 pages
1991: 121 pages
1992: 129 pages
1993: 104 pages
1994: 109 pages
1995: 111 pages
1996: 126 pages
1997: 118 pages
1998: 112 pages
1999: 86 pages

Given the scope of the pages to edit (all 1000+), I also propose that DannyS712 bot implement the sub-categorization if this proposal passes. In comments, please specify if you support the stub templates but not the bot edits. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support split and bot request. Her Pegship (really?) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Just an observation that this stub category is down to 480 articles, but I don't see any per-year stub subcats. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 16:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pegship: From what I can tell, a lot have been deleted because of notability concerns DannyS712 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Her Pegship (I'm listening) 01:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pegship: Do you still support this? DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 17:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pegship: Would you be willing to close this and the above, so that I can file a BRFA? DannyS712 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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.