Selected archiving from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria
The stub category is curently at 11 pages and growing. Before it becomes the next {{ bio-stub}}, I propose two subdivisions:
-- Allen3 talk 14:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
(Was {{
compu-prog-stub}})
The Computer stubs category is getting to be too big, and programming-related articles just don't fit into {{ compu-soft-stub}} or {{ compu-lang-stub}}. – AB CD 22:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This would be a place for any geological features of the Solar System that aren't on Earth. Lots of them are already in {{astro-stub}} and the list will only grow. A2Kafir 01:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Created today; almost 50 in it. A2Kafir 22:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
It's got a lovely image on it and everything, but the Shahnama doesn't even have its own category. How much potential is there for expansion? I agree that stub categories should be specific, but is this perhaps way too specific? - Aranel ("Sarah") 02:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just discovered this one - security stubs - which was hiding a few sociology stubs, military stubs, computer stubs and occupation stubs (now re-templated as such). Doubt if there will be more than a handful of specifically security related articles in total that aren't better suited to other categories. Anyone know anything about this one? Grutness| hello? 07:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles. Did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness| hello? 02:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Horrible. Cuts clean across the existing geo-stub categories. No connected wiki project. Not created by WikiPorject member. Unneccessary, and likely to lead to sorters listing things as lakes instead of (rather than as well as) where they are. Wish I could speedy it! Grutness| hello? 23:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Importantstub: Currently only being used by newbies to tag unimporant articles, such as JanSport. We already have {{ attention}}. Any really important articles that are just stubs should usually be improved through the various WikiProjects and Collaborations of the week, rather than sitting around (forever?) with a huge "Importantstub" tag. If it is an article that has been cited in a publication as an example of why the Wikipedia is not a good encyclopedia, then a notice should go in the Village Pump that will result in quick improvements. gK ¿? 04:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the point of org-stub and corp-stub. Virtually any article that is a corp or org stub will also be another stub (although perhaps not one that there's a template for). For example, American Correctional Association is an org-stub but is also (and more properly) a prison-stub (or law-stub, as I've listed it). Who on earth will go around to all the org/corp stubs and say "I think I'll be able to expand a lot of these"? No one; hence they're not a useful templates/categories. I recommend we delete them. — msh210 20:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, better yet, I recommend we delete the categories and have the templates redirect to stub (and remove org and corp from the list of stub templates), so that we don't have to edit all the articles that have these templates in them. — msh210 20:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another one to get rid of is struct-stub. Much like with org and corp, no one will go through these to find articles to fix. Rather, buildings/structures that are famous in a country (e.g., the Moscow Kremlin, the Gateway Arch, etc.) should be placename-stubs (or other, as appropriate), and architecture stubs should be architecture-stubs (currently nonexistent). Others also have appropriate categories (e.g., christianity-stub for St. Peter's Square), and any that don't will (I'm guessing) be too few to sort. — msh210 17:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since the real goal of stubs is for them to be found and fixed, I believe all biographical stubs should be moved to the stub categories to which that person related: senators to a US Legislature stub, etc. Nobody is an expert on people (virtually impossible) and thus nobody is going to search through bio-stubs. But an expert on the US Legislature or US History might know a lot about a senator, and would find it more easily this way. I recognize bio-stub is a large category; but the end goal is the fixing of stubs, and our goal is facilitating that. -- YixilTesiphon 05:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
There's a "Texas stub" category and a "Texas stubs" category. Obviously there's only room for one Texas around here. Even I, from Texas myself, realizes Texas isn't quite big enough to have two stub categories. chris hathaway 06:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE - Category:Texas stub has gone to the great ranch in the sky. Grutness... wha? 02:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Most of the libraries stubs have the United Kingdom buildings or structures stub (or whatever country they're in), see William Brown Library, some have the museum stub, see London Library and in the Pierpont Morgan Library article someone even wanted to include the library-stub, thinking that it already exists! IMO, we need a library stub. -- Missmarple 15:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
There is currently no stub category for general communications-related articles such as Drop letter. I don't think a stub category specific to mail-related articles would include a sufficient number of articles to warrant it, but one general to communications would. Kurt Weber 04:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
There is currently no stub category for ceremony-related articles. There is one for festivals; however, several ceremonies (such as Enthronement) really don't have accompanying festivals. Kurt Weber 04:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The other area I could dump a whole bunch of bio-stubs into are professors and researchers who don't fall into the scientist, biologist, or mathematician categories. Most of the time they are professors at universities, but I imagine there are many out there who are outside of academia, but still should be considered scholars. chris hathaway 06:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, there is no stub category for children's books. And we need one, badly. Look at
Category:Books, and you will see why. Actually the need isn't quite as great as I originally thought, but it does exist. Stubs that could/shoud go into a Children's books stub include:
Category:Mythology stubs is getting huge. Greek mythological stubs account for a large number of these. Other subdivisions would be helpful as well (for example, {{ Norse-myth-stub}}); see Category:Mythology by culture for ideas. - Sean Curtin 03:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I was having a look at some of the Dune characters stubs and categorised them as book-stub (before I saw there was already a dune-stub proposal here) however I was wondering if it might be useful if there was a stub cat for fictional characters that aren't in books/films/tv shows big enough to have their own stub categories? -- Lochaber 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Just been counting up the lit-stubs to add the total to the Stub-types list, and I noticed a lot of stubs for fictional characters. Would a fictional biography stub template (bio-fict-stub, fict-bio-stub, fict-char-stub or similar) be useful to anyone? And which is the best name for it? Grutness| hello? 04:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we definitely need a fiction-stub template to cover various fictional things/whathaveyou that aren't SF or fantasy. -- Joy [shallot] 01:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do we have enough entries to support a stub category for Digimons?
Generalized replacements for {{ Inca-stub}} and {{ Inca-myth-stub}}. {{ Pre-columbian-stub}} would go under History and parallel {{ Egypt-stub}} or {{ Roman-stub}}. {{ Native-America-Myth-Stub}} would go into the Religion/faiths/myths grouping. -- Allen3 talk 01:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm. Don't really like "America-stub" for a name. Too generic - you'll have people putting US-geo-stubs and US-politicians in there, to start with. Why not start with {{ Pre-columbian-stub}} (or even just {{ PreCol-stub}}) as your main parent, then have {{ Pre-columbian-hist-stub}}, {{ Pre-columbian-myth-stub}}, etc as the subcategories? If it becomes necessary to break it down into regions, then do so like this:
{{ Pre-columbian-stub}}
...so that every subcat is cross-referenced to both race and type of stub. (*) I admit that this nomenclature becomes a problem: is there a set way of splitting up north American native races (e.g., Pacific, Great Plains, Southeast), or should all these groups be lumped together as "First nation" or similar?
Grutness| hello? 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Selected archiving from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria
The stub category is curently at 11 pages and growing. Before it becomes the next {{ bio-stub}}, I propose two subdivisions:
-- Allen3 talk 14:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
(Was {{
compu-prog-stub}})
The Computer stubs category is getting to be too big, and programming-related articles just don't fit into {{ compu-soft-stub}} or {{ compu-lang-stub}}. – AB CD 22:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This would be a place for any geological features of the Solar System that aren't on Earth. Lots of them are already in {{astro-stub}} and the list will only grow. A2Kafir 01:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Created today; almost 50 in it. A2Kafir 22:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
It's got a lovely image on it and everything, but the Shahnama doesn't even have its own category. How much potential is there for expansion? I agree that stub categories should be specific, but is this perhaps way too specific? - Aranel ("Sarah") 02:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just discovered this one - security stubs - which was hiding a few sociology stubs, military stubs, computer stubs and occupation stubs (now re-templated as such). Doubt if there will be more than a handful of specifically security related articles in total that aren't better suited to other categories. Anyone know anything about this one? Grutness| hello? 07:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles. Did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness| hello? 02:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Horrible. Cuts clean across the existing geo-stub categories. No connected wiki project. Not created by WikiPorject member. Unneccessary, and likely to lead to sorters listing things as lakes instead of (rather than as well as) where they are. Wish I could speedy it! Grutness| hello? 23:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Importantstub: Currently only being used by newbies to tag unimporant articles, such as JanSport. We already have {{ attention}}. Any really important articles that are just stubs should usually be improved through the various WikiProjects and Collaborations of the week, rather than sitting around (forever?) with a huge "Importantstub" tag. If it is an article that has been cited in a publication as an example of why the Wikipedia is not a good encyclopedia, then a notice should go in the Village Pump that will result in quick improvements. gK ¿? 04:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the point of org-stub and corp-stub. Virtually any article that is a corp or org stub will also be another stub (although perhaps not one that there's a template for). For example, American Correctional Association is an org-stub but is also (and more properly) a prison-stub (or law-stub, as I've listed it). Who on earth will go around to all the org/corp stubs and say "I think I'll be able to expand a lot of these"? No one; hence they're not a useful templates/categories. I recommend we delete them. — msh210 20:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, better yet, I recommend we delete the categories and have the templates redirect to stub (and remove org and corp from the list of stub templates), so that we don't have to edit all the articles that have these templates in them. — msh210 20:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another one to get rid of is struct-stub. Much like with org and corp, no one will go through these to find articles to fix. Rather, buildings/structures that are famous in a country (e.g., the Moscow Kremlin, the Gateway Arch, etc.) should be placename-stubs (or other, as appropriate), and architecture stubs should be architecture-stubs (currently nonexistent). Others also have appropriate categories (e.g., christianity-stub for St. Peter's Square), and any that don't will (I'm guessing) be too few to sort. — msh210 17:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since the real goal of stubs is for them to be found and fixed, I believe all biographical stubs should be moved to the stub categories to which that person related: senators to a US Legislature stub, etc. Nobody is an expert on people (virtually impossible) and thus nobody is going to search through bio-stubs. But an expert on the US Legislature or US History might know a lot about a senator, and would find it more easily this way. I recognize bio-stub is a large category; but the end goal is the fixing of stubs, and our goal is facilitating that. -- YixilTesiphon 05:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
There's a "Texas stub" category and a "Texas stubs" category. Obviously there's only room for one Texas around here. Even I, from Texas myself, realizes Texas isn't quite big enough to have two stub categories. chris hathaway 06:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE - Category:Texas stub has gone to the great ranch in the sky. Grutness... wha? 02:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Most of the libraries stubs have the United Kingdom buildings or structures stub (or whatever country they're in), see William Brown Library, some have the museum stub, see London Library and in the Pierpont Morgan Library article someone even wanted to include the library-stub, thinking that it already exists! IMO, we need a library stub. -- Missmarple 15:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
There is currently no stub category for general communications-related articles such as Drop letter. I don't think a stub category specific to mail-related articles would include a sufficient number of articles to warrant it, but one general to communications would. Kurt Weber 04:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
There is currently no stub category for ceremony-related articles. There is one for festivals; however, several ceremonies (such as Enthronement) really don't have accompanying festivals. Kurt Weber 04:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The other area I could dump a whole bunch of bio-stubs into are professors and researchers who don't fall into the scientist, biologist, or mathematician categories. Most of the time they are professors at universities, but I imagine there are many out there who are outside of academia, but still should be considered scholars. chris hathaway 06:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, there is no stub category for children's books. And we need one, badly. Look at
Category:Books, and you will see why. Actually the need isn't quite as great as I originally thought, but it does exist. Stubs that could/shoud go into a Children's books stub include:
Category:Mythology stubs is getting huge. Greek mythological stubs account for a large number of these. Other subdivisions would be helpful as well (for example, {{ Norse-myth-stub}}); see Category:Mythology by culture for ideas. - Sean Curtin 03:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I was having a look at some of the Dune characters stubs and categorised them as book-stub (before I saw there was already a dune-stub proposal here) however I was wondering if it might be useful if there was a stub cat for fictional characters that aren't in books/films/tv shows big enough to have their own stub categories? -- Lochaber 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Just been counting up the lit-stubs to add the total to the Stub-types list, and I noticed a lot of stubs for fictional characters. Would a fictional biography stub template (bio-fict-stub, fict-bio-stub, fict-char-stub or similar) be useful to anyone? And which is the best name for it? Grutness| hello? 04:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we definitely need a fiction-stub template to cover various fictional things/whathaveyou that aren't SF or fantasy. -- Joy [shallot] 01:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do we have enough entries to support a stub category for Digimons?
Generalized replacements for {{ Inca-stub}} and {{ Inca-myth-stub}}. {{ Pre-columbian-stub}} would go under History and parallel {{ Egypt-stub}} or {{ Roman-stub}}. {{ Native-America-Myth-Stub}} would go into the Religion/faiths/myths grouping. -- Allen3 talk 01:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm. Don't really like "America-stub" for a name. Too generic - you'll have people putting US-geo-stubs and US-politicians in there, to start with. Why not start with {{ Pre-columbian-stub}} (or even just {{ PreCol-stub}}) as your main parent, then have {{ Pre-columbian-hist-stub}}, {{ Pre-columbian-myth-stub}}, etc as the subcategories? If it becomes necessary to break it down into regions, then do so like this:
{{ Pre-columbian-stub}}
...so that every subcat is cross-referenced to both race and type of stub. (*) I admit that this nomenclature becomes a problem: is there a set way of splitting up north American native races (e.g., Pacific, Great Plains, Southeast), or should all these groups be lumped together as "First nation" or similar?
Grutness| hello? 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)