As pointed out, the Category:People stubs has gotten enormous, and now the Category:Actor stubs has grown to 6 pages (1000-1200 stubs). Instead of people sorting to the "general actor" category, we should probably start subdivisions to sort into. Sarah has already begun the Category:American_actor_stubs. Rather than proposing each country individually here, perhaps we can have a period of blanket approval for the creation of "Actor of (Country) stub" categories & templates ... provided that people add the new categories to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types around the time they create these. What do you think? Courtland 13:01, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
Having started on the process of looking at history stubs, I can see several different ways to proceed which seem at odds with each other. There's sorting by period, by location, and by type of event/subject. Each of them has their merit, and there are some possibilities already clear in each type.
At the moment, I sway towards the following schema, although it's very tentative, and any thoughts and suggestions are very greatly welcomed. The following are all possibles, although only a few may be needed to reduce hist-stub to a reasonable size.
Any thoughts on any or all of these? Or is this all getting too complex? Grutness| hello? 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Three new historical stubs have been created (WWII, WWI, UK-hist) - see note here Grutness| hello? 00:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template:2stub found this stub... not linked or anything. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This one was suggested after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting. For all those European Kings, Queens, Archdukes and the like that used to be in hist-stub but are now cluttering up bio-stub. There must be close on 500 of them, at a rough guess... Grutness| hello? 13:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is already the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, which is for UK royalty and peers, plus there is the {{ peer-stub}}, along with Category:Peerage stubs (as a subcategory of Category:British people stubs). That category currently has 180 articles. The main page for the WikiProject doesn't look like much, but the talk page is very active.
I was surprised that there was no Royalty WikiProject to cover all the other royalty, although Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) seems to be the major place for discussion of all things royal. I was thinking that there might be enough royalty stubs to actually have stubs for a few countries like France, but with only 149 articles in Category:French people stubs, it doesn't look like that is true (unless someone starts translating a bunch of French royalty stubs from the French Wikipedia).
Without a specific Royalty WikiProject, perhaps the articles are best left as bio-stubs under their respective countries. BlankVerse ∅ 06:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{ Euro-royal-stub}} has been created. I'm not entirely convinced by the wording, but it was the best I could come up with to cover both the royals themselves and Dukes, Counts and the like. Grutness| hello? 14:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of stubs on non-European royalty and nobility, in bio-stub and elsewhere. Why should there only be euro-royal-stub? Alternatively, this could just be called royal-stub.-- Pharos 18:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I basically agree with your reasoning, "world" is unnecessary. I see that User:Oven Fresh has created a {{ monarch-stub}} and made {{ royal-stub}} as a redirect to it, but I'm not so sure about the lack of naming consistency with euro-royal-stub.-- Pharos 15:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree; let's rename this to noble-stub and and get rid of monarch-stub. I think the wording and definition should be along the lines of "monarch, royal or noble" - all three should be combined in this and the more specific euro-noble-stub etc.-- Pharos 08:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Update: I've created {{ noble-stub}}, and {{ monarch-stub}} is now a redirect to it. Once it's emptied, I'll move Category:Monarch stubs to cfd. Grutness... wha? 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Grutness, I've wandered over here to explain the mess I've made and why I did it. I feel that "euro-royal-stub" should not be used to encompass European nobility, as the two terms do not refer to the same people. I understand the desire to avoid conflation, but nobles are not royals and they really don't belong in the same category. I understand that they appear similar, and that those of you doing the re-stubbing (which is a wonderful and valuable effort) might have difficulty telling the difference. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask that the distinction be made. I'd also like to suggest that you poke Adam Bishop about which monarchs, historically, should be called "European" monarchs. He has some concerns. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: {{ Euro-royal-stub}} now redirects to {{ Euro-noble-stub}}, and the wording has been changed fractionally so that peer-stub (under a new name) can be a subcategory of it. For the next few days it means that peer-stub will contain a few oddities (Mercian Kings, for instance), but it will all make sense when a new name goes through. About to make a few null-edits... Grutness... wha? 09:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
just created it, but i'll wait for approval before using it. For stubs relating to hallucinogens following the creation of the WikiProject on Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics, a sort-of descendant project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs. -- Heah 22:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok there are god knows how many country stubs. I can do all of that with one template, use it with care.
{{GCS|Cuba}}:{{
GCS|Cuba}}
{{GenericCountryStub|France}}:{{
GenericCountryStub|France}}
Minor issue with countries that have a different name for images and different name for their articles. (only a few has this problem)
{{GCSD|Us|United States}}:{{
GCSD|Us|United States}}
{{GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}}:{{
GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}}
--
Cool Cat
My Talk 03:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Please no - this new stub is already causing problems (as listed below under "newly discovered templates") and will be more work in the long run than the current system, and more work for the editors on an item by item basis. Let's take the three examples you've listed above. Under the current system, a regular editor keeps "{{ -geo-stub}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean", "France" or "US". Under the proposed system, s/he keeps "{{ GCS}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean|Cuba", "France" or "US|United States". It only takes a few articles for the work to have greatly increased. The casual editor still has to know the names of the categories, so it won't improve their lot either (in fact, they too will have to type more). And every time a new geo-stub category is created, a little more tweaking of the system will be required. What's worse, this template would ideally be on all the geostubs - a distinct case of template/server overload. And all of them would have an icon, leading to even more server trouble. Grutness| hello? 01:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
User:Coolcat has just created template:GCS and template:GenericCountryStub
{{GCS|Cuba}}
{{
GCS|Cuba}}
{{GenericCountryStub|France}}
{{
GenericCountryStub|France}}
Template:GenericCountryStub calls Template:GenericCountryStubDetail (which also has a redirect from Template:GCSD). This design assumes that all France stubs are in Category:France stubs, rather than Category:France-related stubs (and doesn't take into account that there are other country stubs that are not neatly named). He's even added to one article ( Jinetera).
In checking the Jintera article, I ended up discovering that when User:Rdsmith4 created the template:cuba-stub, that he created neither a category:Cuba stubs (which template is currently designed for) nor a category:Cuba-related stubs. Do we need to check all the stubs not created by WP:WSS to verify that a category was created? BlankVerse ∅ 03:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: As you can see by the too verbose TFD templates that have been added, all of these templates, subtemplates, and redirects have now been nominated at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 06:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
There are 300-400 Struct-stubs. Of them, about 140 are in Asia, and nearly 80 are in Canada. Also, there are between 300 and 400 Euro-struct-stubs, of which about 100 are in Germany. Therefore, I’d like to propose {{ Asia-struct-stub}}, {{ Canada-struct-stub}}, and {{ Germany-struct-stub}}. Grutness... wha? 08:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics I'd like to propose UK-comics-stub. There are over 400 stubs in Category:Comics stubs, and a rough count leads me to believe there are exactly 100 comic stubs of UK relevance. Amongst entries are:
Hiding 09:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I moved this discussion from "Newly-discovered stub categories" to this section to reflect a proposal I'd like to make. Rx StrangeLove 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
"This article is an internet-related stub." Could be actually quite useful, but feeds into Category:Stub and was never listed here or anywhere else... 3 pages have it, created on May 7 by User:Stevertigo. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
This would help clear out the thirty or so explosives-related stubs that are currently in {{ chem-stub}}, and maybe let explosives experts blow them up a bit... Physchim62 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been poking in the huge mega-{{ bio-stub}} area, and I've noticed many articles on Polish people. I think this would help clear out the generic bios a bit. Joyous 23:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I created this stub template for the Culture of Kazakhstan article. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I only just now learned that stubs should be discussed before put in articles, is that correct? So I temporarily removed the stub from the article until we discussed it here. Is it official policy to discuss stubs here? Also, is the size of the Kazakhstan flag on the stub okay? Revolución 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
These would be used for specific ships and would clean out a lot of stuff from {{ naval-stub}} and {{ water-stub}}. A2Kafir 18:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I have found a fair number of computer graphics stubs on {{compu-stub}}, and there are also some of them on {{compu-sci-stub}}. I propose creating a {{compu-graphics-stub}} for them. -- cesarb 02:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
As pointed out, the Category:People stubs has gotten enormous, and now the Category:Actor stubs has grown to 6 pages (1000-1200 stubs). Instead of people sorting to the "general actor" category, we should probably start subdivisions to sort into. Sarah has already begun the Category:American_actor_stubs. Rather than proposing each country individually here, perhaps we can have a period of blanket approval for the creation of "Actor of (Country) stub" categories & templates ... provided that people add the new categories to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types around the time they create these. What do you think? Courtland 13:01, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
Having started on the process of looking at history stubs, I can see several different ways to proceed which seem at odds with each other. There's sorting by period, by location, and by type of event/subject. Each of them has their merit, and there are some possibilities already clear in each type.
At the moment, I sway towards the following schema, although it's very tentative, and any thoughts and suggestions are very greatly welcomed. The following are all possibles, although only a few may be needed to reduce hist-stub to a reasonable size.
Any thoughts on any or all of these? Or is this all getting too complex? Grutness| hello? 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Three new historical stubs have been created (WWII, WWI, UK-hist) - see note here Grutness| hello? 00:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template:2stub found this stub... not linked or anything. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This one was suggested after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting. For all those European Kings, Queens, Archdukes and the like that used to be in hist-stub but are now cluttering up bio-stub. There must be close on 500 of them, at a rough guess... Grutness| hello? 13:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is already the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, which is for UK royalty and peers, plus there is the {{ peer-stub}}, along with Category:Peerage stubs (as a subcategory of Category:British people stubs). That category currently has 180 articles. The main page for the WikiProject doesn't look like much, but the talk page is very active.
I was surprised that there was no Royalty WikiProject to cover all the other royalty, although Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) seems to be the major place for discussion of all things royal. I was thinking that there might be enough royalty stubs to actually have stubs for a few countries like France, but with only 149 articles in Category:French people stubs, it doesn't look like that is true (unless someone starts translating a bunch of French royalty stubs from the French Wikipedia).
Without a specific Royalty WikiProject, perhaps the articles are best left as bio-stubs under their respective countries. BlankVerse ∅ 06:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{ Euro-royal-stub}} has been created. I'm not entirely convinced by the wording, but it was the best I could come up with to cover both the royals themselves and Dukes, Counts and the like. Grutness| hello? 14:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of stubs on non-European royalty and nobility, in bio-stub and elsewhere. Why should there only be euro-royal-stub? Alternatively, this could just be called royal-stub.-- Pharos 18:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I basically agree with your reasoning, "world" is unnecessary. I see that User:Oven Fresh has created a {{ monarch-stub}} and made {{ royal-stub}} as a redirect to it, but I'm not so sure about the lack of naming consistency with euro-royal-stub.-- Pharos 15:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree; let's rename this to noble-stub and and get rid of monarch-stub. I think the wording and definition should be along the lines of "monarch, royal or noble" - all three should be combined in this and the more specific euro-noble-stub etc.-- Pharos 08:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Update: I've created {{ noble-stub}}, and {{ monarch-stub}} is now a redirect to it. Once it's emptied, I'll move Category:Monarch stubs to cfd. Grutness... wha? 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Grutness, I've wandered over here to explain the mess I've made and why I did it. I feel that "euro-royal-stub" should not be used to encompass European nobility, as the two terms do not refer to the same people. I understand the desire to avoid conflation, but nobles are not royals and they really don't belong in the same category. I understand that they appear similar, and that those of you doing the re-stubbing (which is a wonderful and valuable effort) might have difficulty telling the difference. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask that the distinction be made. I'd also like to suggest that you poke Adam Bishop about which monarchs, historically, should be called "European" monarchs. He has some concerns. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: {{ Euro-royal-stub}} now redirects to {{ Euro-noble-stub}}, and the wording has been changed fractionally so that peer-stub (under a new name) can be a subcategory of it. For the next few days it means that peer-stub will contain a few oddities (Mercian Kings, for instance), but it will all make sense when a new name goes through. About to make a few null-edits... Grutness... wha? 09:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
just created it, but i'll wait for approval before using it. For stubs relating to hallucinogens following the creation of the WikiProject on Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics, a sort-of descendant project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs. -- Heah 22:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok there are god knows how many country stubs. I can do all of that with one template, use it with care.
{{GCS|Cuba}}:{{
GCS|Cuba}}
{{GenericCountryStub|France}}:{{
GenericCountryStub|France}}
Minor issue with countries that have a different name for images and different name for their articles. (only a few has this problem)
{{GCSD|Us|United States}}:{{
GCSD|Us|United States}}
{{GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}}:{{
GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}}
--
Cool Cat
My Talk 03:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Please no - this new stub is already causing problems (as listed below under "newly discovered templates") and will be more work in the long run than the current system, and more work for the editors on an item by item basis. Let's take the three examples you've listed above. Under the current system, a regular editor keeps "{{ -geo-stub}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean", "France" or "US". Under the proposed system, s/he keeps "{{ GCS}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean|Cuba", "France" or "US|United States". It only takes a few articles for the work to have greatly increased. The casual editor still has to know the names of the categories, so it won't improve their lot either (in fact, they too will have to type more). And every time a new geo-stub category is created, a little more tweaking of the system will be required. What's worse, this template would ideally be on all the geostubs - a distinct case of template/server overload. And all of them would have an icon, leading to even more server trouble. Grutness| hello? 01:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
User:Coolcat has just created template:GCS and template:GenericCountryStub
{{GCS|Cuba}}
{{
GCS|Cuba}}
{{GenericCountryStub|France}}
{{
GenericCountryStub|France}}
Template:GenericCountryStub calls Template:GenericCountryStubDetail (which also has a redirect from Template:GCSD). This design assumes that all France stubs are in Category:France stubs, rather than Category:France-related stubs (and doesn't take into account that there are other country stubs that are not neatly named). He's even added to one article ( Jinetera).
In checking the Jintera article, I ended up discovering that when User:Rdsmith4 created the template:cuba-stub, that he created neither a category:Cuba stubs (which template is currently designed for) nor a category:Cuba-related stubs. Do we need to check all the stubs not created by WP:WSS to verify that a category was created? BlankVerse ∅ 03:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: As you can see by the too verbose TFD templates that have been added, all of these templates, subtemplates, and redirects have now been nominated at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 06:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
There are 300-400 Struct-stubs. Of them, about 140 are in Asia, and nearly 80 are in Canada. Also, there are between 300 and 400 Euro-struct-stubs, of which about 100 are in Germany. Therefore, I’d like to propose {{ Asia-struct-stub}}, {{ Canada-struct-stub}}, and {{ Germany-struct-stub}}. Grutness... wha? 08:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics I'd like to propose UK-comics-stub. There are over 400 stubs in Category:Comics stubs, and a rough count leads me to believe there are exactly 100 comic stubs of UK relevance. Amongst entries are:
Hiding 09:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I moved this discussion from "Newly-discovered stub categories" to this section to reflect a proposal I'd like to make. Rx StrangeLove 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
"This article is an internet-related stub." Could be actually quite useful, but feeds into Category:Stub and was never listed here or anywhere else... 3 pages have it, created on May 7 by User:Stevertigo. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
This would help clear out the thirty or so explosives-related stubs that are currently in {{ chem-stub}}, and maybe let explosives experts blow them up a bit... Physchim62 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been poking in the huge mega-{{ bio-stub}} area, and I've noticed many articles on Polish people. I think this would help clear out the generic bios a bit. Joyous 23:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I created this stub template for the Culture of Kazakhstan article. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I only just now learned that stubs should be discussed before put in articles, is that correct? So I temporarily removed the stub from the article until we discussed it here. Is it official policy to discuss stubs here? Also, is the size of the Kazakhstan flag on the stub okay? Revolución 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
These would be used for specific ships and would clean out a lot of stuff from {{ naval-stub}} and {{ water-stub}}. A2Kafir 18:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I have found a fair number of computer graphics stubs on {{compu-stub}}, and there are also some of them on {{compu-sci-stub}}. I propose creating a {{compu-graphics-stub}} for them. -- cesarb 02:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)