Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2021/December

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. 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, December 2021

Sri Lankan politician 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.
Category:Sri Lankan politician stubs is sitting at a 516 pages at the moment.

There are 9 provinces of Sri Lanka. Each MP represents an electoral district which corresponds exactly with the sub-districts of Sri Lanka. This makes for easy sorting even with historical stubs; thus, this would just be standard sorting by region: this would follow the set-up of Category:Sri Lanka geography stubs.

These would be created as:

It may also be beneficial to sort by party, but I'll determine this after initial sorting is complete.

Curbon7 (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 03:16, 24 December 2021 (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.

Nepal politician 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.
Category:Nepalese politician stubs is sitting at a casual 513 pages at the moment.

There are 7 provinces of Nepal as created in 2015. Even though these were created recently, they are organized by the grouping of the pre-existing sub-districts of Nepal. This makes for easy sorting even with historical stubs; thus, this would just be standard sorting by region: this would follow the set-up of Category:Nepal geography stubs.

These would be created as:

n.b. Province No. 1 and Province No. 2 will be renamed by the government eventually.

By region is pretty much the only way to sort Nepali politicians, as by party seems extremely difficult/impossible. This is because their political system has consisted of like 10-20 different major communist parties that are constantly merging and collapsing like every 2 seconds; this makes it a nigh impossible to figure out a sorting system that will last.

Curbon7 (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 02:44, 14 December 2021 (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.

Taiwanese politician 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 created.
Category:Taiwanese politician stubs is huge, sitting at 485 articles. Propose splitting via the two major parties (i.e. {{Taiwan-KMT-politician-stub}} for Kuomintang and {{Taiwan-DPP-politician-stub}} for Democratic Progressive Party). Splitting via geography wouldn't work well since Taiwan is unitary, so by party seems better. Would sort first and make the categories after they reach 60 each. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 02:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorting completed. Was able to cut down to 248 pages. That's pretty much as good as it's gonna get, as most of the remainder have no party affiliation. Both categories were able to be created. Curbon7 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2021 (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.

Texas 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 created.
{{Texas-election-stub}} has 74 instances. Would be created as Category:Texas election stubs. Curbon7 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 02:45, 14 December 2021 (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.

British Army 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 do not create.
If there's consensus for the above template, can somebody approve this draft? Thanks. --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The parent category, Category:United Kingdom military stubs, is very poorly sorted and needs significant work; that said, I would support as an upmerge until it reaches the 60 article threshold (with the category likely being Category:British Army stubs once it crosses the threshold). Curbon7 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Significant work" - really??? Care to explain your high provocative statement? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: As the creator of this draft stub, it is simply the case of creating a 'parity' of other arms British Armed Forces - the Royal Air Force has a 'root' stub, as does the Royal Navy. So why does the British Army not have a 'root' stub template? I would strongly suggest that many British Army-specific stub articles have been incorrectly classified with the WRONG stub template. My guess is that there would very easily be more that 60 articles which could be more accurately stubbed with {{British Army stub}}. Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If many British Army-related stub articles have been incorrectly classified, perhaps there is a question of whether they should be re-classified under an existing stub type (for example, Category:United Kingdom military unit and formation stubs, and/or Category:British Army personnel stubs). (I believe that is the work to which Curbon7 refers.) If there are fewer than 60 articles for which a new {{British-Army-stub}} would be the best choice, we generally upmerge the template until more than 60 articles have been tagged with it, at which point it should have its own category. Her Pegship (?) 04:35, 5 December 2021 (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.