Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/May 2008

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of May 2008. Please move completed May discussions to this page as they are closed, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After May, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

• Discussion headers:
  • {{sfp create}}
  • {{sfp nocreate}}
  • {{sfp other}} (for no consensus)
  • {{sfp top}} for customized result description (use {{sfp top|result}}).
• Discussion footer: {{sfd bottom}}

Category:Michoacán geography stubs

After creating 32 Mexican geo-stub templates per the to-do list then an exciting few days restubbing most of the 850ish articles, I've found that 71 articles use {{Michoacán-geo-stub}} so I'm proposing this new category to go under Category:Mexico geography stubs. Also, we should keep an eye on both {{Tamaulipas-geo-stub}} (currently at 50) and {{Veracruz-geo-stub}} (currently at 53). - Dravecky (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

fits the pattern of Speedy Waacstats (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Afghanistan geography stubs, by state, and related bot request

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.

European school stubs by nation

Category:European school stubs is a oversized (325 articles at present), suggest splitting to national level (eg. {{Norway-school-stub}} which has over 30 candidates), and upmerging where appropriate. (possibly speediable under S2) -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say 325 articles is oversized: have you seen the size of the backlog of stub types that are over 800?  :) I certainly support speedying any national upmerged templates you fancy whatsoever. Bear in mind that the threshold for separate "un-upmerged" categories is 60, however. Alai (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I've come across many stub cats over 200 articles, to be honest; mind you, my main interest is in the categorisation of school cats. I was aware at the 60 articles to make it's own category, and would obviously respect that (the figure for Norway was from stub sense for those marked as both {{Norway-stub}} and {{Euro-school-stub}}; I thought there were more than that though, from my stub-sorting in Category:School stubs and children. Which reminds me, Is there a precedent for dealing with stubs in Oceania and the Caribbean? It seems that whilst the major countries are represented, it might be worth doing "something" to move them into Continental categories maybe? -- Ratarsed (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stroll on over to WP:WSS/T and be appalled, then. :) The schools have been oversized (as in over 800) in the past, but are clearly being wrassled under control these days. Just checking about the 60, given your mention in passing of 30, pardon my over-zealousness. We've certainly had categories for both Oceania and the Caribbean in the past (and have them at present), so no reason that couldn't be looked at here, too. Per-country upmerged templates preferred, however. Alai (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

Remaining Californian counties: 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.

Category:Thai museum stubs

Or "Thailand museum stubs", or "Museum in Thailand stubs", however we're mangling these this week. Viable at 80, parent is oversized. Alai (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Building and structure category would use Thai, I Support Category:Thai museum stubs and a rename of the Australian category is probably in order. Waacstats (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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:European 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.

{{Sufism-stub}} or such like

(moved from talk page) I wanted to create a new stub template for sufism stubs. As I was unaware of the red tape involved I just went ahead and made a category Sufism stubs. It easily has hundereds of articles within its scope and is a much needed template for the development of Sufism related topics and the Sufism portal. The only consensus that was built on this template was on the Sufism talk page. Anyway, what is the appropriate way forward. Thanks--Shahab (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it looks like this would be viable; there are currently 81 articles in the category and Category:Islam stubs is over 600. Should we keep it, folks? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, at least as a template, though if there are as many as Peg suggests a category would be a good idea too. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

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.

Ballad stubs

Category:Ballads has been subdivided at an exponential rate. On top of that music genre song categories have been subdivided for ballad profiling as well. So many genres have profiled ballads, that it lead to the creation of the subcategory Category:Ballads by genre. So many ballads have been profiled, that we need to make the template {{stub-ballad}}

Sample:

This ballad-related article is a stub.

--Roadstaa (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it would be {{ballad-stub}} or {{ballad-song-stub}}...if it flies. It looks like we have previously subdivided by music genre and then by "song" (see Category:Song stubs). Since ballads can belong to many genres, I think we should stick with the current song-stub sub-cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• It would definitely be {{Ballad-stub}} or {{Ballad-song-stub}} - not {{Stub-ballad}} - but to be honest I'm not keen. The term Ballad has various slippery and vague definitions, even in music alone (ballads are primarily poems that tell stories). In music there are at least three different definitions of the term (one for rock, one for folk, and one for jazz). As such, any stub division into ballads and non-ballads is going to be problematical. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand my template nomenclature mistake. Also, ballads make up almost 50% of popular music. Thats one criterion that warrants a ballad stub category and template. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That is exactly the problem. We already have a bunch of popular music stub types split up per genre and decade, but not musical form (you only find that in the classical music stubs). We don't split by the theme of the piece either, i.e. (in the case of ballads), songs that tell a story. We need to stick close to the current structure or we might as well give up on any structure. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ironically, the fact that such a high proportion of songs are ballads might actually mitigate against there being a stub type. Such a broad split might not be much use in the long run, since it would instantly result in the need for extra splits. 50% of song stubs? That'd make a big category... Grutness...wha? 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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: North East England building and structure stubs (speedy)

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 North East England building and structure stubs category.

Missing categories for some existing stub templates

Some templates in Category:United Kingdom building and structure stubs don't seem to have their own categories. Before I go ahead and create those, I thought I should check here (even though I wouldn't really be creating new stubs, just the missing categories). The templates are Template:Durham-struct-stub, Template:NorthernIreland-struct-stub, Template:Northumberland-struct-stub, and Template:TyneandWear-struct-stub. Klausness (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! That's because until a stub template is used on 60 or more articles, it doesn't get its own category, per stub creation guidelines. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK.... Well, never mind then.... Klausness (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I do have a followup, though. What would be the process for creating, say, a North East England building and structure stubs category (which would presumably include Durham, Northumberland, and Tyne and Wear)? Would this need to be proposed once there are enough articles to go into it? For example, Category:East Midlands building and structure stubs doesn't have its own template, so presumably all its members are there via one of the more specific templates in the category. Klausness (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be this very process. :) It looks to me like it's there or thereabouts, and it's indeed exactly on the pattern of existing split, so I'd certainly support it as soon as there's 60. (Some stray bits of North Yorks should also be included, which will probably require some additional templates at the UA level.) Alai (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Klausness, you might also like to check out our Speedy creation criteria at the top of the page - S1 describes exactly the sort of situation you were initially talking about. As far as the regional splits are concerned, as long as they are along official regional lines (as shown here), I see no problem with it, other than the usual one that some counties straddle region lines. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged a few more releveant stub articles, and I think there should definitely be more than 60 now. Klausness (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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.