English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick

English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2014/September

< English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals‎ | Archive

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by imported>MalnadachBot at 07:33, 9 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
  __ARCHIVEDTALK__

Proposals, September 2014

Category:British philatelists

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.
The template {{UK-philatelist-stub}} has existed since January 2103 and is used in 50-100 articles. I propose a category Category:British philatelist stubs, to take these people out of Category:British people stubs where they currently have to sit. PamD 09:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I will create the category. PamD 15:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Have created Category:British philatelist stubs and updated {{UK-philatelist-stub}} to use it. I don't think I've done this before, so if someone would like to cast an eye over them and check that all is well I'd be grateful. I modelled it on Category:British explorer stubs. PamD 16:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@PamD:We generally only create if there are at least 60 stubs (this tool reports 51 for this tag), but now that it exists with over 50, there's no need to worry about it for now. Otherwise, this looks good. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:42, 26 October 2014 (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.

Speedy school proposals

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.
Propose the following two categories, both of which have passed the article threshold:

Dawynn (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2014 (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.

Italian painter 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.
1. I just created categories for Italian painter, 14th century birth stubs‎ and Italian painter, 20th century birth stubs‎

The Italian painters stub category has over 800 entries and creating subcategories may increase the speed of improvement. I say this meets either 

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

Rococo1700 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2014 (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.

Missing-bio-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.
I think we should have a way to categorize "Disappearance of" type articles, since they are not appropriate for {{bio-stub}}. The code I have worked up is:

Extended content
{{Asbox
| image     = 
| pix       = 30
| subject   = 
| qualifier = about a missing person
| category  = Missing people stubs
| tempsort  =  
| note      = <!-- For use on "Disappearance of" articles -->
| name      = Template:Missing-bio-stub
}}

This article about a missing person is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

The reason I brought this here is that I can't find a suitable Icon to use. Something with two people, (like File:Crystal Clear app Login Manager.svg) involving a question mark, maybe? File:At a loss.svg is the only one even close.--Auric talk 14:09, 21 September 2014 (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.

Century stubs for short stories and short story collections

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.
The Category:Novel stubs cat is very well diffused, but not the Category:Story stubs and Category:Short story collection stubs. I'm willing to help diffuse these cats. I suggest starting with centuries: 19thC-story-stub, 20thC-story-stub, 21stC-story-stub and their corresponding collection cats 19thC-story-collection-stub, 20thC-story-collection-stub, and 21stC-story-collection-stub. We can later add decade stubs as we see fit. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose; currently these stub cats are diffused by genre rather than date. I suggest evaluating these categories for possible genre splits. Pegship (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2016 (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.

Early-play-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.
Most of the entries in Category:Play stubs are plays whose dates are not readily available. But most of the ancient and medieval play-stub articles do have dates listed, but they have no category to sort into because we have no cats for anything before the 15th century--see Category:Pre-18th-century play stubs for the available options. There aren't a lot of these articles, but it seems odd to have no other place to put them, given how many other time-based play-stub cats we do have. Therefore I propose we create an "early-play-stub" template that would cover all the pre-12thC play stubs and that would be placed in the pre-18th-century category. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose; I think that there aren't a sufficient number of articles (yet!) to require this template. I suggest we continue upmerging templates such as {{15thC-play-stub}} until something hits at least 70 stubs. Pegship (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2015 (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.

Missing Decade-Play-Stub Cats

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 upmerged templates for now.

Under the S2 criteria, I propose creating Category:1900s play stubs (35 articles), Category:1910s play stubs (37 articles), Category:1940s play stubs (50 articles), Category:1950s play stubs (58 articles), and Category:2010s play stubs (53 articles). I believe that the decade-categorization is sufficiently established that it should not matter how many stubs are in these categories and that filling in the missing decades is more important. Also, I half-created the 2010s play stub cat before I realized that they needed to be requested here; it's still up, but not listed in any stub cats yet. Sorry! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy create stub tags, create categories where the stub tags are used on enough articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know what you mean. The stub tags exist, but they don't have matching categories yet, so they're all lumped together in Category:20th-century play stubs, etc. Are you saying create new stubs, or new cats? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know the tags existed. Try using them on existing stubs; any btag which is used on 60 stubs can get its own category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing that with Category:Play stubs and have dramatically reduced the number of stubs in that catch-all category. As you can see from the numbers above, the 1950s stubs are just under 60, and the 1940s are close behind. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2014 (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.

Category:Southwestern Indiana 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.
I propose creating Category:Southwestern Indiana stubs - a quick scan finds 161 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and create the category. Gug01 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2015 (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.

Category:Northern Indiana geography stubs split

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:Northern Indiana geography stubs is at 500 stubs. I propose splitting it according to Northern Indiana#Sub-regions:

These regions don't quite cover all of North Indiana; they leave 57 stubs behind. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:11, 10 September 2014 (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.

Category:Cook County, Illinois geography 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.
I propose creating Category:Cook County, Illinois geography stubs - in adition to Category:Chicago, Illinois geography stubs (almost at 60 right now - and while a bit of Chicago is in DuPage County, nearly the whole city is in Cook County), this should catch an other 21 stubs tagged with {{CookCountyIL-geo-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 5 September 2014 (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.

Category:Indiana geography stubs split

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:Indiana geography stubs's subcat system is curremntly messed up. I thinkk we need to fix it in the following way:

  1. Define the scopes of Category:Northern Indiana geography stubs and Category:Southern Indiana geography stubs to match the maps at Northern Indiana and Southern Indiana
  2. Create Category:Central Indiana stubs to cover the counties which are in between.
  3. Category:Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus geography stubs should be a subcat of Category:Central Indiana stubs; dispite the map at Indianapolis metropolitan area, this should exclude Bartholomew, Brown and Jennings counties, which are in the Southern Indiana area.
  4. Stub tags should be created for any Indiana county which doesn't have; categories for any Indiana county which reaches 60 stubs

With the exception of the categories mentioned above, no other categories should be created until the stubs at Category:Indiana geography stubs are mostly sorted, when it's possible to see what needs to be done. What do other users think about this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Indiana has been notified of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Central category created as Category:Central Indiana geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2014 (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.

Splits for Category:Lamiinae 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.
Propose initial splits for Category:Lamiinae stubs

Dawynn (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2014 (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.

More splits for Category:Cerambycinae 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.
Propose new templates and categories for both the Heteropsini and Hexoplonini tribes. Each of these already have one genus with a full category, with other genera that can help fill the tribal categories:

Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2014/September&oldid=15046497"