Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals, August 2006

[edit]

{{Bird-stub}} split

[edit]
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 those specified by Alai.
I haven't checked the counts for these stub types, but it seems to me like there might be a lot here. Keep in mind that there are a lot of bird stubs, and these are categories which have a lot of articles, probably including a lot of stubs:

Eli Falk 11:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks plausible given that the parent is at about 600 - 700; however, without an estimate for each of the templates it's hard to give support or opposition. Could you get estimates please? Aelfthrytha 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I have:
Given that Category:Birds by classification is underpopulated at 466, there's a strong chance the above five would be viable, so I'll support those if anyone is willing to go on a hunt. The Falconiformes at 34, and the Coraciiformes at 33 may be a little light, so I'm not prepared to support them at present. Alai 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

East and West Sussex

[edit]
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.
Probably only a minor point, but when the England geo-stubs were split into ceremonial counties, East Sussex and west Sussex (two separate CCs) were left in one category with one overall sussex-geo-stub template. There are now clearly enough stubs (300 in total) for these to be broken out into their two separate categories and templates - {{EastSussex-geo-stub}} and {{WestSussex-geo-stub}} - with the deletion of the current single template (as happened with yorkshire-geo-stub early on in the England split. (Brighton and Hove, listed separately in Category:England geography stubs for no readily apparent reason, is officially in East Sussex, BTW). Grutness...wha? 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to assume you're not going to propose another delete-the-template-and-keep-the-category exercise, and on the proposal itself, support, of course. Alai 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not. This time, it would be a delete for both the category and the template, since there's no point of having a template and a category for something that doesn't exist as an individual item. Yorkshire-geo-stub and its associated category were deleted with absolutely no problems, absolutely no complaints, and absolutely no confusion. There's no reason to suppose this should be any different. And it's already pretty well-known among those who use more than the cruder country-level splits that we're splitting by ceremonial county, anyway. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cross-country skiing biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create as revised.
There's easily 60 in Category:Winter sports biography stubs, which is starting to get up there in size. (I cannot, however, think of a name for the template that makes any sense, so suggestions here gladly accepted). --fuzzy510 06:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canadian Ice Hockey split

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

The result of the debate was create by position.
After sorting the ice hockey bios, Canada's category is left with a massive 8 pages. I'm honestly not too sure how to split this one. My first instinct says to go by position, since that's seemingly the default split in such a situation. However, I think that might be somewhat problematic. As I envision it, we'd need to work it something like the baseball bios, with a category for forwards and then individual tags for centers and wingers that served as children. However, there are a lot of articles that don't have the position indicated. In addition, there aren't any permcat splits by position, so it'd be problematic to figure out the viability.

I think that the best solution is to take advantage of the fact that there are far fewer Canadian provinces than U.S. states, and split by province. There are categories for different provincial sportspeople, and while the stubs are not all completely categorized, it'd give an idea of the viability.

I don't really care one way or another, because I'm not certain what would be the best split, but I do know that it should be split. So, opinions? --fuzzy510 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From July...

See Category:Ice hockey personnel --Usgnus 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 06:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec)And which do you think people (and especially professional sportspeople) change more often, their sporting role, or their physical location? I think by province is a horrible idea, for the reasons it is for almost all biographies, sorry. I'd rather see by team, by position, by decade, by league, or really, almost anything else. Unfortunately, and as you say, existing permanent categorisation doesn't seem to be great. Numerous per-team splits would be viable on that basis, but very little else. (However, the stub type has grown significantly since the last dump, so this will have to be redone after the next one -- whenever that is, it's 18 days since the last complete dump, and the process is currently idle for some unknown reason.) Surely there's a wikiproject or two we can draft in on this, though? Alai 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey :-) --Usgnus 06:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, I'm not really trying to campaign here, but by province isn't viable when used as a reference for place of birth? I mean, isn't that what we do for the different biography splits by country? --fuzzy510 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not very intuitive, and doesn't correlate at all well to "who is likely to expand this article?", if a player is born in one province, grows up in a second, goes to college in a third, and played hockey in a further three. What we do with country-based splits is a little fuzzy as to the exact criterion, but works at least somewhat in practice on the "who's heard of this person?" principle. Alai 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that province - and also team - aren't particularly good ways to split this. Players tend to move from team to team, and also from province to province. I'd favour position first, then decade - it's unlikely a player will play in more than a couple of general positions within a team, and also uunlikely that a player's career would span more than a couple of decades at the top level. it's quite feasible for them to play in several teams during that time, though, in several different provinces or states. Grutness...wha? 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{FuturesExchange-stub}}

[edit]
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 template, upmerge cat.
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade, Eurex, International Monetary Market, New York Mercantile Exchange, BIFFEX ...

or simply go to the category Commodities Exchanges for a partial list. There are others “out there” for which no page yet exists at Wikipedia.

(At some point I may suggest changing the name of the category from Commodities to Futures Exchanges. More inclusive.)

This stub category can easily cover commodities exchanges and options exchanges, most of which seem destined to merge as the industry consolidates.

A category separate from the Stockexchange-stub is desirable, as their markets differ significantly.

Further, all of the futures exchange Wiki pages I have seen so far qualify only as stubs. – RayBirks 07:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you think there are currently 50-60 stubs for this? If not, a possible option (no pun intended) would be to rescope the Stock exchange stubs category to cover both types of exchange and have two separate stub templates feed into it, one for each. that way it could be easily split out later if and when there are enough. Grutness...wha? 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can imagine a FinancialExchange stub that could cover all of these. There are not quite 50 stubs for the futures exchanges, but I think that is just a gap in the Wikipedia universe for now. I'm new enough that I don't quite understand about "stub templates feeding in to it" but may grasp it after sleeping on it. (It's 3 am in my time zone.) Your pointers are welcome. -- RayBirks 08:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the size of the Category:Financial services company stubs (see also my own suggestion), it would certainly be handy if this were feasible. Unfortunately the Category:Stock exchanges seems to be largely polluted by Category:Companies by stock exchange, and 'futures' don't really appear to figure in my analysis of that category, at least. What Grutness is suggesting is that a template -- {{exchange-stub}}, or {{financial-exchange-stub}}, let us say -- be created, but not a separate category for the time being. Instead, they'd stay in the parent category, but once a thresholdish number is reached, they can easily be reclassified just with a token node of approval, and a template edit. Alai 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-hah: we already have a {{stockexchange-stub}}, hence the lack of those in the parent (that isn't -- I suppose not all of these are companies per se). Maybe this could be rescoped... the futures don't look likely to be viable on their own, given the size of Category:Futures exchanges. Alai 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have to research the parent/child relationship, stub vs. category relationship, and the template mechanics. These are still unclear to me. Pointers to pages for tutoring appreciated, one and all. -- Another possibility for a new stub could be FuturesIndustryStub. This would pull in the exchanges, plus all those other related folks and firms lingering in the general finance & economics categories. -- RayBirks 04:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put it simply, stub categories should bear at least a passing resemblance to non-stub ("permanent") categories. But because of the purposes stub categories have foir editors, they're only really useful if there are a reasonable number of articles for them (which is why we use a threshold of about 50-60 articles). These articles would get a stub template which automatically puts them in a connected stub category. While we're unsure that there would be 50 stubs for a separate futures exchange stub category, we could make a template for futures exchange stubs which would put the articles into the same category as stock exchange stubs. If we later find there are 50 stubs with the new template, it would be very simple to redirect the template to a new separate category, thereby moving all the articles that have that template into the new category. Hope that helps :) Grutness...wha? 06:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


econ-stub split

[edit]
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 topic on which my ignorance is much more extensive than my bank balance, so I shall present counts based on the top level subcats of Category:Economics and of Category:Finance, and hoping someone else can sort out what makes sense as a stun type, and what doesn't.

Economics:

Finance:

Doubtless overlap will mean that not all of these are simultaneously sensible, so feel free to cherry-pick. Names are also provisional, and and based directly on those of the permcats. (I'd be dubious about the one with the semicolons, at the least.) Alai 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Category:Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics) stubs. I think that a better idea would be having a Category:Econometrics stubs to cover quantitative methods, which is strongly needed. Theoretical models do not need a separate mathematics category, they can go straight into the respective subjects' categories, i.e. macroeconomics, financial market etc.
Also, IMO Category:Financial institutions and services stubs would suffice, rendering Category:Financial service stubs and Category:Financial institution stubs useless AdamSmithee 08:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input: I didn't dig quite deep enough to get to the econometrics (the list was getting very long and false-possish, so I stopped quite "shallow"), but it looks like it would catch 71, too (I assume exactly the same ones, indeed), so I'm happy to substitute that one. I'll likewise avoid the others you mention, and if there are no countervailing opinions, make candidate lists for the remainder before populating them (or leave popoulating them to some willing volunteer, indeed...). Alai 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Software split

[edit]
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 nightmarishly large stub type (12 pages), and is likely to be a pretty tangly one too. The above counts are based off the top two levels of sub-cats of Category:Software, but could be prone to much overlap and false-possing, so take with a pinch of salt until verified. There also seems to be a huge amount of undersorting to Category:Network software stubs (199 stubs, seemingly) and Category:Unix stubs (64). Alai 04:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. --Bruce1ee 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support - I've been working my way through all the stubs in Category:Software stubs (up to the T's now!) and maintaining a list to help identify possible splits. Given my observations, I think Multimedia software stubs is definitely viable and I was actually getting ready to suggest that. Music, Text Editors, Science and Business might also be viable as I've seen a reasonable number of them. I'm not convinced of the others though. Where have these numbers come from? I'm particularly interested in the UML number as I haven't seen evidence of anywhere near this number of stubs in Software stubs so far. I'm also not sure what you mean by "There also seems to be a huge amount of undersorting to Category:Network software stubs (199 stubs, seemingly)". Finally, software by company or OS would cut across the existing split by software type, so I would only do that as a last resort. --TheParanoidOne 18:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The numbers are based on membership of perm-cat subtrees rooted at Category:Text editors, Category:Business software, etc, calculated from the db as dumped on the 10th. This is obviously liable to both false positives and false negatives, so if you have more accurate counts, I'm happy to defer to those. The UML ones look to be especially inaccurate, as seemingly Category:Microsoft is a subcat of Category:Unified Modeling Language -- d'oh. If you wish, I can generate and upload lists of any particular candidate you might find potentially useful (with or without tagging by the associated category they're included on the basis of). Alai 04:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


TV bio split

[edit]

I tell a lie, I can find some apparently viable splits in here:

I also detect what seems to be significant undersorting to US-tv-bio-stub, and to TV-actor-stub. Alai 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic theology and doctrine stubs

[edit]

Five-page parent, this looks like the most promising avenue of split (133 possibilities). Alai 04:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organic compounds split

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

The result of the debate was create as revised..

May be some overlap, but shouldn't be massive in any instance I can think of. Alai 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice setup, but I am not sure, where do I find sulfides, disulfides, nitriles, alkanes, etc. Does the above list contain all the stubs (hmm .. about, miss 31 to my counting, not considering duplicate grouping (850 vs. 881)).

One could also consider the following sectioning:

Of course this gives the same problem as above, compounds belonging in more groups (though, one could put it in one or two, and making a supercat (keep Category:Organic compound stubs) for compounds that contain more than 2 functional groups). Advantages of the first method is that people specialised in amines could just pick an amine stub, of the second is, that it is easy to extend this to the inorganic compounds:

etc. Which for the larger stub-groups can be split even further in:

etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the input, Dirk. The above makes no attempt to be comprehensive, it's just every permanent category (including descendants) with 60 or more org-comp-stubs, filtered for anything that appeared to me to be too obviously mutually exclusive, duplicative, or tangential to primary notability. Some duplication and omission is very likely (I could uploads the lists if you wish). I didn't do the same for the inorganics simply because they're not oversized, but I could do if it's of interest. Alai 19:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you, thank you for this counting work! Quite a job to put things into groups!
OK, as I said, for me the first list makes sense, in that it is recognisable what is in it. And there will indeed not be many disulfide-stubs. I just counted the pages in Category:Inorganic compound stubs: 595. Seems also quite big, but for that a completely different approach may be needed. You could consider making also a cat for medicinal/pharmaceutical compound stubs (may not be big at the moment, but I am encountering quite some pharmaceuticals at the moment in my current AWB run, which are stubby, but do not carry a link/stub-mark to organic chemistry/compounds, while I expect also there to be knowledge about these.
I'll keep an eye on this, lets hear what others think of this. And drop me a line on my talk-page when I you need help taking these edits through an AWB run. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that not only is there already a Category:Pharmacology stubs and a Category:Medical treatment stubs, the former is already oversized: see a split proposal for that, elsewhere on this page. I can only hope that the people tagging these as one as opposed to the other aren't working too much at cross-purposes... 595 is indeed quite big, and if the inorgs can be split now, it'd spare it becoming "urgent" later. However, I can't find anything feasible at the moment: closest I can see, again based on perm-cat hierarchies, would be Category:Inorganic carbon compound stubs (43), Category:Metal halide stubs (42) and Category:Chloride stubs (35). If there's undercategorisation these may be undercounts, of course, though it may simply be that there are no perm-cats that are sufficiently broad, and they'd have to be "lumped" by hand. I'd certainly be supportive of upmerged templates for undersized-but-plausible sub-types if anyone is keen to make a start on these. Alai 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Category:Pharmacology stubs and the Category:Medical treatment stubs, but these are from the medical point of view. They contain a lot of molecules (mainly organic), but it does not make sense to make these descendants of Category:Organic compound stubs (because there is much, much more in them), therefore I would like a stub-sort that is inbetween these two.
For metals, inorganic chemists have often a metal-based speciality, i.e., people working with titanium often do not know a lot (practically) about palladium. I guess a division made by metal-grouping makes more sense there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand the intended scope then. Organic compunds with a pharmaceutical application, as a subtype of both the above? Wouldn't that be extremely large? Ideally we want somewhat smaller stub types than said ~1000 cats. :) Alai 07:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pharm-stub group contains many molecules, but also many not-molecules (groups of medicine types, like antiinflammatory etc.), I think that it should be possible for chemists to find these molecules (they make many of the molecules that are used as medicine). I'll try and have a look into the group, and see if I can estimate how many of the articles in that stub-group are actual molecules. So it would end up as that the three supercats Category:Organic compound stubs, Category:Inorganic compound stubs, and Category:Pharma stubs have a descendant which is Category:Pharmaceutical compound stub. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split: The current category is certainly large, but is it too large to find stubs which are worth working on? I think not. Physchim62 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Canada bio split

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

The result of the debate was create all but historical figure.

Six-page parent. Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

India bio split

[edit]
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 six-page parent. Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Australian politician stubs

[edit]
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.

YA6PP. Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we decide as to UK politician splits (party or era), this should probably go the same way. I'm a little concerned if there are six pages overall but only about 200 of them are from the main two parties! What about just an {{Australia-MP-stub}} and an {{Australia-senator-stub}}? Would those reduce things enough not to have to worry about a party-or-era split for now? Grutness...wha? 07:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably significant undercategorisation -- which is not entirely reasonable, after all, if there were no completeness or structural problems with these articles, they wouldn't be stubs! Under Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives I count 63, and under Category:Members of the Australian Senate, 42: once again, one would have to suspect significant undercatting. So probably both viable, but less useful in the short term. (Isn't that also highly prone to double-stubbing?) Alai 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Australian bio stubs

[edit]
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.

Guess how big this parent is? Alai 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Split of Mast-stubs

[edit]
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.
While I'm undecided about whether these articles should even be in Wikipedia, there are enough of them to consider splitting the category. There are about 500 mast stubs, the vast majority of which could be split between two large groups:

It's not in the "urgent" category yet, but it would make sense to start looking at these fairly soon. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anime/manga splits

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

The result of the debate was create.
These currently lurk in a single 7 page category. If all else fails we could split into Category:Anime stubs and Category:Manga stubs, but as those are each likely to be huge, perhaps the following might be viable as sub-cats (or alternative splits in their own right).

I haven't double-checked the perm-cats corresponding to these to see if these are likely to be false-pos-ridden. Alai 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{mental-health-stub}} / Category:Mental health stubs

[edit]
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.

A child of {{health-stub}} Category:Health stubs and would be new parent for {{psych-stub}} and Category:Psychology stubs.

  • 67 stubs reclassified from {{psych-stub}}
  • 1 stub reclassified from {{med-stub}}
  • 2 articles that have not yet been classified or tagged as stubs


(I have made a full list and saved it on my computer. If this passes, I will tag these 70 stubs/articles with the new classification – If I need to put the list on here, could someone tell me how to do it)


This was brought to my attention when editing my newly made Mental health professional article. Before that page was made, mental health professions were thrown all over the place, some linking to each other, some not, some contradicting, and no one had a universal place to go. The same thing goes with mental health related topics, esp mental health stubs (the articles needing the most attention by Wikipedia users). My little Mini-Mental Health Stub FAQ :)-

1. How will we classify a stub as psychology, mental health or medical? -Psychology would be something dealing specifically with psychological research -Mental health would be something dealing with identification or treatment of mental health/illness symptoms or individuals working in mental health (i.e. psychiatrists) -medical if something is health based and not dealing with MENTAL health.

2. Why not just classify everything as psychology? -If you are unfamiliar about the differences in psychiatrics and psychology, visit the article Mental health professional or Psychiatry or Psychology or Clinical Psychology. Right now there are several psychiatric articles and articles touching on subjects of psychiatrics AND psychology. i.e. classifying a psychiatrist in a psychologist stub would probably make them turn in their grave :), they are two different specialties, but the term "mental health" covers both and more professions and fields.

3. Why classify psychology as a child of mental health? -see definition of psychology and clinical psychology in Wikipedia.

4. So if there is a psychology stub, and there would be a mental health stub, why not create a psychiatric or psychiatry stub? -I'm not counting that out BUT, psychiatrists ONLY deal with mental health. That's why they exist. Anything categorized under mental health stub would most likely deal with psychiatry. Psychology is a little different because although psychology is a study of mental health and more importantly behavior, they don't all specialize in the treatment of illness, etc. (clinical psychologists do, but psychologist professors wouldn't). If something has to do with psychology research and/or behavioral information, it should probably be classified as psychology. If it has to do with illness or state-of-being it should probably be mental health.

Basically I feel like this stub is badly needed. There are already a lot of (70) mental health stubs that I found in the short time I looked. Not to mention the psychology and psychiatry related topics on Wikipedia are growing rapidly, meaning there will be a lot of future new stubs in this category. Thanks for your help, I look forward to your opinions. Chupper 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a good plan to me. The pysch-stubs are oversized, so this seems preferable to rescoping to include -iatry as well as -ology, though the scope for confusion between the two remains due to the abbreviation. (Perhaps we should expand this once the psychiatries are weeded out.) Alai 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd tend to agree. Psych-stub is splittable, and this seems a logical way of doing it. If we're going to split this stub fully sometime, I'd suggest dev-psych-stub, cogni-psych-stub, percep-psych-stub, behav-psych-stub, clin-psych-stub, neuro-psych-stub and pharm-psych-stub (with better names, of course) would be worth considering as other subtypes. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (MSc in percep-psych ;)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/August&oldid=1066819506"