|
On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.
Proposing new stub types - procedure
Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to WP:AFC for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add {{Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles.
|
Proposing new stub types |
|
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow these procedures:
- Check at Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
- List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
- Please bear in mind that a stub category isn't about the importance or notability of the topic!
- Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. Each of these articles can be:
- currently marked with {{stub}};
- currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
- a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
- not marked as a stub.
- Others may do the same, if they so desire.
- 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
- If you wish to propose a stub type which does not currently have 60 articles that could use it, you may propose an upmerged template in a similar way. An upmerged template would feed into currently existing stub categories until such time that there are enough stubs for a separate stub category. At that point a category for it may be separately proposed.
DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which is already being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages.
^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.
|
"Speedy creation"
A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:
- S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
- S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope.
List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.
Proposals, December 2008
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the December archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.
NEW PROPOSALS
just seen this one has shot up towards 800. These would take the size down.
Waacstats (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Coming close to 800. Believe it or not we have over 60 articles on diplomatic missions in Russia. catscan Do we want to create a template/category for this if so what do we call it and what if any other stub parents do we give it? Waacstats (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be open to a {{Russia-embassy-stub}} covering "embassies and other diplomatic missions", probably with Cat:Russia(n) diplomatic mission stubs as its target, although I can see a case being made for different names so as to extend it somehow to include all the "Foo-Russian relations" stubs, too. The Cat:Russia stubs base cat probably could do with some sorting, BTW, so that 800 is probably artificially high - there seem to be a fair few geo and bio types in there. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the undersorting but thought I'd ask about this as alot of articles are obviously embassies. The problem with the names suggested is that I would take that as meaning embassies of Russia i.e Russian embassy in the US rather than foreign embassies in Russia ie US embassy in Russia. The perm cat would be Cat:Diplomatic missions in Russia. Waacstats (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
just reached 800 propose
rough idea of numbers from catscan. Waacstats (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support as long as the templates use -videogame- as do the rest of the vg templates. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Typical the one I was looking at at the time had to have a rediredt not the correct template. Support change suggested by Her Pegship. Waacstats (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oversized at 845, we already have {{PRChina-footyclub-stub}} and {{PRChina-basketball-team-stub}} that between them have 74 articles so propose either
Waacstats (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think sorting by sport and country is better than sorting by just country, so i'd oppose sports-team-stubs. In order to include national teams, we could consider {{PRChina-national-team-stub}}--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Creeping up to 715, lubkily we already have by county upmerged templates and the following are all over 60 so propose relevent categories
Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Generic country stubs
There still seem to be a few generic country-stub types missing - i've just noticed that we have no {{Montserrat-stub}}, for example. These are speediable, but I'm giving the heads-up here first. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll make upmerged templates for any I find that don't have a basic stub (hopefully there aren't that many left now...) Grutness...wha? 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not only have I made this and used this, but the number of stubs using this and the other two existing Montserrat templates would mean that Cat:Montserrat stubs would contain 64 articles. Speedy? Grutness...wha? 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support speedy, the same goes for any others out there.Waacstats (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As it is for Cat:African football biography stubs, so shall it be for this stub category.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- No country appears to have 60 stubs at present so this is probably the best solution. Waacstats (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposals, November 2008
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.
Architect templates
The current category has over 600 stubs and probably some of the following are viable or soon will be for categories to accompany them but it seems sensible to create the following templates: Count Blofeld 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- Looks like a good plan. Waacstats (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
medical biography stubs are large and although this wouldn't have ben the first country I would have thought of, this appears to be viable according to catscan Waacstats (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Starting to get a good number of swedish people this one looks viable according to Catscan. Waacstats (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Can't believe this hasn't been created yet? 60 scientists from Sweden? Rather more like 60,000 Count Blofeld 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
starting to increase in size, first page appears to be units so propose.
Waacstats (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
propose we split this along the same lines as those North of the border.
Waacstats (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Equally surprised this hasn't been done yet Count Blofeld 14:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
getting close to 700 and growing, propose split by decade of birth upmerged to centuries if need be. Waacstats (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
2 templates have over 60 stubs propose speedy create
Waacstats (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Propose the following and creation of categories where viable.
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)
- 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:
- Paul (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- I agree - {{France-...}} is far better than {{FRA-...}}. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Renewable-power-plant-stub
Currently, {{Renewable-energy-stub}} has about 250 articles, and most of them seem to be dedicated to wind farms or other renewable power plants. This makes it hard to find stubs for anything else related to renewable energy, such as standards or techniques. It may make sense to have a dedicated wind-farm-plant-stub, too. — Sebastian 06:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well spotted. Seems a sensible move although it might be worth looking into how many we have for each energy medium. I would suggest creating templates by each medium e.g {{HydroElectric-power-plant-stub}} and feeding them into a Cat:Renewable power plants stubs category? Sound reasonable anybody? Count Blofeld 11:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable, but it would be better at {{Hydroelectric-power-plant-stub}} - the E doesn't need to be capitalised Grutness...wha? 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (who drove past at least four major hydroelectric plants last week)
WikiProject Halloween was created because Halloween-related articles may fall into categories of holidays, festivals, horror, songs, books . . . and many fall through the cracks of other categories because they are of low importance. Category:Stub-Class Halloween articles has 31 articles, and it is very likely that more will be identified as we dig deeper.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- The risk of this is that it becomes extreme cross-category, not to say unrelated to primary notability. For example, your SCA category currently includes Halloween hermit crab and Halloween crab, which I do not imagine would be likely to see much expansion from Halloween WPJers. If there are 30 articles that are primarily to do with Halloween -- and are actually stubs, come to that -- this may be reasonable. Alai (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the articles were assigned based on the DYK Halloween 2008 project, and yes, not all of them have quite a strong association with Halloween. Halloween does draw together a number of elements not normally associated, however, and those examples aside the articles tagged by the WikiProject will continue to be somewhat eclectic, covering television, parades, music, and customs.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I had a few minutes and identified another ten articles that fall within the scope, and I do not think you'll find any of the new additions to be as questionable in your judgment as Halloween crab. I expect that the number could easily reach 100 with enough effort.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Well why not actually propose it when these missing articles have been added. Are you sure they are all notable? Perhaps we'd take your word for it then. Count Blofeld 22:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe I understand the question about notability. All articles in Wikipedia must be on notable subjects.
- The stub tag would be useful now, as it could be used to automatically populate the category. I find that laying the groundwork in advance saves a lot of work later, but I don't know if that's how the process best works with stub sorting. If it's a no go that's fine, the project can function without a stub tag.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, If you've already got an assessment template (which, judging byb your comment about Stub-Class articles, you probably have), you've already got a template which does more for your project than a stub template could. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I don't know what FWIW means, but I think I understand your meaning regardless. Thank you.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose this as a sub-category of {{tech-stub}} to provide a category for all stub articles relating to sensor systems, such as radar and sonar systems, IR cameras, electro-optic sensors, etc. At the moment there is no obvious place to look for sensors-related stubs and no obvious place to put them other than under the generic technology stub. Radar itself has well over 150 articles, many of which are stubs. Paul (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a bit of confusion between templates and categories in the above but... Cat:Technology stubs could certainly do with splitting further - it's very oversized at about 1300 stubs. This sounds like a reasonable way of doing it, as long as it doesn't cross through the subcategories already there. If it doesn't, I'd certainly support an upmerged template (which should be at {{sensor-stub}}, BTW, using the singular rather than the plural), and once it reaches 60 stubs, a category (Cat:Sensor stubs) would also be good. I'd just like more input from those who'd know whether this crosses existing stub types first... Grutness...wha? 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Propose upmerge templates by country and create categories for those which are viable Count Blofeld 16:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed templates to be created
and any others people think are appropriate. Count Blofeld 16:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it. Alai (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll have to do an assessment of the other countries to see what the existing vs potential figures are but I know there are also numerous other countries in Latin America and Asia and undoubtedly most other countries in Europe which have or had a number of botanists, certainly those which can be transwikied. Botany is a valid topic in itself and there are sure to be biographies from most places. I'll look into Latin America and Asia later but these are the ones that would seem sensible for now.
For example Estonian wikipedia has 28 biogrpahies which can be transwikied so even if we ar enot yet viable for categories for such countries we can safely assume creation of templates for most countries would not be a bad idea. OK I've done some more research and checking with Spanish wiki and what we have at present and the creation of these all seem sensible as there are a number of biographies that we have covered or will be covereed during the transwikiying I will be doing. Count Blofeld 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Old business
Everything from here down has passed the five day proposal period. Unless discussion to determine consensus is actively on-going, proposals may be acted upon, to be created, or noted as not approved. Move this marker up as time passes.
{{Ukraine-party-stub}} has over 60 articles propose speedy speedy creation of category. Waacstats (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Count Blofeld 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support as Cat:Ukrainian political party stubs, and likewise rename siblings for the avoidance of Stub Grammar(TM). Alai (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support as Cat:Ukraine political party stubs per normal stub naming (permcats are at "X in Foo", so stubcat should be at "Foo X stubs" - it's only if the perrmcats are at "Fooian X" that we normally use "Fooian X stubs"). Nothing to do with your favourite neologism of "Stub Grammar (TM)" (not so much of a neologism, really, given how frequently you trot it out) - just a standardised way of naming things that makes plenty of sense. If the permcats don't use "Fooian", there's often a very good reason why they don't - a reason which we're likely to run foul of if we use it for stub cats. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a neologism, it's a descriptive phrase. One can determine this by a) counting the number of words, and b) looking them all up in a dictionary. That such torturing of category naming -- not to say the English language -- could be mischaracterised as "normal" underlines the ongoing need for its deployment. Same applies to "standardised": we perfectly sensibly have Cat:Ukrainian building and structure stubs, not Cat:Ukraine buildings and structures stubs: same logic appears here. Likewise, Cat:Ukrainian history stubs. Your alleged standard doesn't exist in /NG, it doesn't exist as such on the ground, and it doesn't follow normal usage. We should be rowing in the direction of actual normality. Alai (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes the thing is it can be confusing when the templates read e.g {Ukraine-struct-stub} and then the category reads {Ukrainian building and structure stubs}. It usually isn't to us lot as we are usually well acquainted with how stub/cats are named but if I wasn't I would probably get them mixed up Count Blofeld 11:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Though of course we always use the noun form in stub template elements, even in cases like the people stubs, where the permcats are at -ian/-ish/etc adjectival forms (including in cases like the UK/US, sadly, which is another issue that we've never managed to completely resolve). So there's always going to be that disconnect, at least in some cases. But since one isn't having to remember the category names off the top of one's head for most purposes, this isn't as inconvenient as it could be (and indeed, is, when trying to remember the exact form of a permcat, when trying to add that directly). Alai (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
-
- Update: I went ahead and created the anxiolytic and cannabinoid types. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Strange that this doesn't exist. Various other media-related stub cats exist, such as Cat:India media stubs and Cat:Florida media stubs.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Those tend to exist largely for "lumping" purposes (or when people have gone off on a flyer, and created them regardless). I think a {{media-stub}} template would be counterproductive, so that would leave it as a container. Alai (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- No objection to it as a container only, per Alai. HOWEVER - and it's a big however (hence the caps), this is the wrong name. It should match the permcat as Cat:Mass media stubs - and all Cat:Fooian media stubs category should also be moved to the equivalent mass media name. when I first saw the heading, I though "shouldn't that be art media?", so there's clearly scope for confusion. (I'll propose the Fooian ones at SFD). Grutness...wha? 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah spod - it's much more complex than I though. The main category is Cat:Mass media but all the country-specific types are at Cat:Fooian media. I'll leave a note at WP talk:CFD, see if anyone thinks its worth a mass rename... The current proposal here should still be at Cat:Mass media stubs, though. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it used as only a sorting tool for other media-related stubs.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've created the stub as Cat:Mass media stubs. However, I am finding it difficult to find stub categories to include within. Take a look and see if you can think of any of the missing.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Template over 60, European sports venue stubs over 800. Speedy!? Waacstats (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I would also look a tthe others if I was you and find ways that the 800 could be split. I'd probably recommend creating templates by country and upmerging the ones that aren't viable. Count Blofeld 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the countries with over 30 articles already have a template. Waacstats (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here's some additional counts:
-
-
- I suggest we create regional subcats, in line with the UN geoscheme. Alai (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea, should finally get it off the oversized list. (Have we split any other euro cat by UN geoscheme?) Waacstats (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I know of (Asia and Africa yes, Europe no). It's a shame we have to resort to that here, but I can't see any other easy option. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes that looks like the best course of action. According to Patken only Ireland can hit 60 Count Blofeld 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
While this is a bit hard to count since it has not been sorted, there are about 40 radio station articles for SA, 40 newspapers not to mention the books, broadcasting and other articles in Cat:South African media.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds OK to me; suggest separate templates for each medium. Alai (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Should easily be viable. Yes seperate templates would be advisable.
|
