Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/November
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the November archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.
- 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 France-politician-Foo-stub.
Currently 1,107 stubs. Rapidly increasing. Split by party? The only problem I see is that one party in France seems to have the largest proportion of politicians. However, many of the other parties will undoubtedly have over 60 stubs Count Blofeld 11:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose the following and creation of categories where viable.
- {{FN-politician-stub}} (National Front)
- {{UMP-politician-stub}} (UnionforFrenchDemocracy) (this is the biggy with the highest number in)
- {{FrenchSocialist-politician-stub}}
- {{MNR-politician-stub}} (NationalRepublicanMovement)
- {{MPF-politician-stub}} (Movement for France)
- {{FrenchLiberal-politician-stub}}
- {{ModernLeft-politician-stub}}
- {{PCF-politician-stub}} (French Communist Party)
Naturally there are other parties but these seem to be the main parties. Probably they could be abbreviated but it might conflict with other parties which use the same initials from other countries. The main parties in France are shown here Count Blofeld 11:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick comment on the proposed naming. Given that potentially every country in the world at some point might require categories for each of its political parties, why not prefix the category name with the three letter country code - eg. FRA for France in this case, DEU for Germany, GBR for UK, etc. Thus categories would be:
- {{FRA-politician-FN-stub}} (National Front)
- {{FRA-politician-UMP-stub}} (UnionforFrenchDemocracy)
- {{FRA-politician-Socialist-stub}}
- {{FRA-politician-MNR-stub}} (NationalRepublicanMovement)
- {{FRA-politician-MPF-stub}} (Movement for France)
- {{FRA-politician-Liberal-stub}}
- {{FRA-politician-ModernLeft-stub}}
- {{FRA-politician-PCF-stub}} (French Communist Party)
- Paul (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say using the whole name, I.E. {{France-politician-Socialist-stub}} is a better idea as it matches the current {{France-politician-stub}}.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - {{France-...}} is far better than {{FRA-...}}. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. But is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" far better than "PRK" or "Bosnia and Herzogovenia" better than "BIH"? The 3 letter ISO codes would have been a far more consistent choice for the category naming and much clearer in the long run. However, given that the decision on the parent category name is already made, I'll reluctantly agree. Shame it wasn't better named to start with... Paul (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they are better (or at least, the standard stub names for those two countries are), since they fit with the current pattern and are non-ambiguous. They're "NorthKorea" and "BosniaHerzegovina" in all other stub templates that use them. As for ISO 3 letter codes, remember that many stub templates are divided not just by nation, but also by subnational region, and also along other axes which also have recognisable abbreviations. As such, they would definitely not have been far clearer in the long run. Consider the potential problems with LBR-politician-stub, SEN-politician-stub, IND-politician-stub... or consider POL-poli-stub and GEO-geo-stub. Even something as simple as COD-stub, COM-stub, MAC-stub, ARM-stub, or ESP-stub has potential for major confusion. We actually did run into problems several years ago before the names were formalised with PNG-stub, which was changed for the exact reason of confusion between a graphics format and a country. Grutness...wha? 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. But is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" far better than "PRK" or "Bosnia and Herzogovenia" better than "BIH"? The 3 letter ISO codes would have been a far more consistent choice for the category naming and much clearer in the long run. However, given that the decision on the parent category name is already made, I'll reluctantly agree. Shame it wasn't better named to start with... Paul (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - {{France-...}} is far better than {{FRA-...}}. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say using the whole name, I.E. {{France-politician-Socialist-stub}} is a better idea as it matches the current {{France-politician-stub}}.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2008 (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 Category:Pharmacology 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.
Yikes over 2600 articles in this category! Wasn't this proposed a short while ago? Its seems familiar. Needs urgent attention Count Blofeld 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Back in June there were two types approved, cannabinoids and anxiolytics. Anything else look viable? Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counts... I have a whole ton of them.
Several of these are likely to overlap, possibly heavily. Not an area it's easy to get reliable counts for, much less to do much in the way of bot-sorting. Alai (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy hallucinogens, Batman!! Support any or all of the above. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I went ahead and created the anxiolytic and cannabinoid types. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (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 Category: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 NewSouthWales-politician-stub.
735 articles, likely to increase considerably given that an editor is currently expanding. By decade births? Create upmerged templates by decade and split where viable?
Count Blofeld 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't we normally split politician stubs by political party? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Alai (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I thought that would make more sense, but seieng how Norway was done I assumed this was the convention without thinking about the others. How many parties are there? Count Blofeld 12:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already {{AustralianGreens-politician-stub}} and {{Australia-National-politician-stub}} which categorise into the root category. Why not set up subcategories for those two, as see how far it gets you. Hesperian 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A better idea would be to try to get them to 60 stubs first - neither are there, though the National one is close. I'd definitely support the creation of a {{Australia-Labor-party-stub}} (yes, that's the correct spelling for the AU political party, though ghu alone knows why), {{Australia-Liberal-party-stub}}, and possibly {{Australia-Country-party-stub}}.Grutness...wha? 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already {{Australia-Labor-politician-stub}} and {{Australia-Liberal-politician-stub}}, and they are already categorising into subcategories of Category:Australian politician stubs, and the parent category still has 742 members. From a random sampling of the first page, it would appear that a great many entries are for members of state legislatures. Would {{NewSouthWales-politician-stub}} work? Hesperian 00:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The answer to your "Labor/Labour" mystery can be found at King O'Malley. Hesperian 00:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already {{Australia-Labor-politician-stub}} and {{Australia-Liberal-politician-stub}}, and they are already categorising into subcategories of Category:Australian politician stubs, and the parent category still has 742 members. From a random sampling of the first page, it would appear that a great many entries are for members of state legislatures. Would {{NewSouthWales-politician-stub}} work? Hesperian 00:09, 12 November 2008 (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 Category:Documentary film 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 nature-documentary-stub.
Approaching 750. Needs stub sorting. Count Blofeld 11:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions of how to split? By country of origin? Subject matter? The only one we have so far is by subject matter - if we continue along those lines perhaps templates for {{nature-documentary-film-stub}}, {{history-documentary-film-stub}}, and {{bio-documentary-film-stub}} may be worth considering. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have {{hist-documentary-stub}} and {{bio-documentary-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops - didn't notice them. The nature one's still a good idea though, IMO. Perhaps this is more a case of sorting (i.e., the "To do" list) than further splitting? Grutness...wha? 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those seem to be for more than just documentary films (hence their not being sub-types), so that would be shuffling them sideways, and/or double-stubbing them, rather than sorting per se. Alai (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They were originally created to cover both tv and film. If the film types are created as above, then the current types should be renamed tv-foo-documentary-stub to clarify the difference. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or in one case, docs of all sorts, including radio. So, renaming would also mean resorting them. On the other hand, would there be enough to split into two types? Best thing might to be to create an additional upmerged template for now, and revisit the split into films and others at a later date. Alai (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They were originally created to cover both tv and film. If the film types are created as above, then the current types should be renamed tv-foo-documentary-stub to clarify the difference. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those seem to be for more than just documentary films (hence their not being sub-types), so that would be shuffling them sideways, and/or double-stubbing them, rather than sorting per se. Alai (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops - didn't notice them. The nature one's still a good idea though, IMO. Perhaps this is more a case of sorting (i.e., the "To do" list) than further splitting? Grutness...wha? 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have {{hist-documentary-stub}} and {{bio-documentary-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is by decade out of the question? Count Blofeld 21:57, 10 November 2008 (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.
A few new hospital templates
[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.
I was surprised to find, while writing out an SFD, that there is no {{PRChina-hospital-stub}} type. In fact, we seem to have very few hospital-stub subtypes at all. It's not in the urgent stage yet (closing in on 500 stubs), but upmerged types at least will be useful preemptively. I'd like to propose the following:
- {{Asia-hospital-stub}}
- {{Europe-hospital-stub}}
- {{Africa-hospital-stub}}
- {{Oceania-hospital-stub}}
- {{SouthAm-hospital-stub}}
- {{CentralAm-hospital-stub}}
- {{Caribbean-hospital-stub}}
- {{Canada-hospital-stub}}
plus any for any other countries that look reasonable, and categories for any continent/region that reaches 60. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I proposed this a while back. Count Blofeld 22:17, 7 November 2008 (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.
{{Balearics-geo-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 as revised.
At a quick glance, a large number of the unsubcategorised Spain-geo-stubs seem to be for places in the Balearic Islands. We have a generic {{Balearics-stub}}, but no geo-equivalent. CatScan suggests at least 45 articles could be marked with such a template - of course, if the totals 15 higher than that, a category would also be useful... Grutness...wha? 11:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, I'd upmerge templates for Majorca-geo-stub, Minorca-geo-stub and Ibiza-geo-stub and feed them into a Category:Balearics geography stubs instead. Majorca may be even be viable for its own category. Count Blofeld 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea at that - or perhaps Balearics-geo-stub with three redirects for specific islands may be better. I'd think the category should probably be at Category:Balearic Islands geography stubs, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 7 November 2008 (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:2000s heavy metal album stubs subgenres
[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.
Oversized, several existing subgenre types. Category:2000s power metal album stubs and Category:2000s doom metal album stubs now appear to be viable. Alai (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, power metal was passed in june and concievably doom could also be speedied based on the discussion. Waacstats (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (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.