Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/July

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Discoveries

Newly discovered, July 2009

edit

{{MB-race-stub}}

edit

From the same editor as below; Category:Cycling race stubs isn't particularly oversized (217), and even so a mountain bike races stub would only make a small upmerged dent into that. SeveroTC 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the amount of stub-class mountain bike races do not warrant their own category. Will blank and request for speedy delete. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be   Done --Kslotte (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountain bike manufacturer stubs/{{MB-manufac-stub}}

edit

Certainly sizeable enough for a template - but would certainly work better with less specialisation i.e. {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} (not sure of the correct name to use here) and then category Category:Cycle manufacturer stubs) depending upon size. SeveroTC 10:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would probably be {{bike-company-stub}}. Certainly we don't have any stubs for companies that manufac (or even manufacture) Manitoba, so MB-manufac-stub is right out as a name and should be changed ASAP. Via WP:SFD, since we certainly wouldn't keep the current name and - as you say - rescoping is a reasonable move. Grutness...wha? 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with widening scope. As we have Category:Cycle manufacturers, {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} seems a logical name to me. The creator of {{MB-manufac-stub}} has already added it to cycle manufacturers who make other kinds of bicycle as well as mountain bikes, e.g. Dawes and Thorn Cycles. Qwfp (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} is that we have {{bike-stub}} and {{company-stub}} as the base forms from which it would be based. Uh - correction: {{Bike-stub}} is a redirect to {{cycling-stub}} - we don't have a stub type for bicycles (perhaps we should). In any case, we don't use "manufacturer-stub" as a base type; this would be a subtype of company-stub. And given that {{cycle-stub}} would be enormously ambiguous - and that no-one makes "cycles" anyway (they make bikes or bicycles) - {{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} doesn't seem like a particularly good name (to me, at least). Come to think of it, "bike" is ambiguous (motorbikes?), so {{bike-stub}} probably shouldn't exist (and certainly as a redirect to cycling-stub it seems inappropriate). Maybe {{bicycle-company-stub}} is a more logical name. In any case, that's something for the discussion at SFD rather than here. Grutness...wha? 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub was created to categorize stub-class mountain bike manufacturer articles. Cat:Cycle manufacturers has 205 articles, which does not warrant a split (of those 205, perhaps only 100-150 are stubs). I can move it to Template:Cycle-manufac-stub and change the right words. I will wait until consensus is reached on a name though - it seems like there are many opinions here. Andyo2000 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing to change it Andyo2000. I guess we may as well continue discussing the name here. Grutness's reasoning above makes sense to me, so I'd be happy with {{bicycle-company-stub}}, or maybe {{cycling-company-stub}}. Qwfp (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me, too - but note that the purpose of a stub category is not to split a parent category - everything marked with this stub template should sstill also be in the main Category:Cycle manufacturers category. {{cycling-company-stub}} certainly makes some sense given the current {{cycling-stub}}, and may have a slightly wider scope. The one concern is that it shouldn't contain companies only connected to cycling tangentially through things like sponsorship (e.g., Rabobank and Cofidis shouldn't be in there). Grutness...wha? 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As currently used, {{MB-manufac-stub}} is used on companies that manufacture/sell mountain bikes. After expansion, it can cover Bicycle manufacturers, bicycle product-related companies (i.e. also parts), or bicycle-related companies. I agree sponsoring companies would make the category too big, so I vote for the second option. Make the stub {{cycling-company-stub}}, for bicycle and bicycle parts companies, and add in its documentation where it should be placed. Andyo2000 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets finish this and make the final conclusions

edit

Is this the way I have understood it? Corrections? Support? Objections? --Kslotte (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeees... Theoretically that should be done through a discussion at WP:SFD, but I doubt anyone would object if it was done here. One slight alteration to the proposed plan iss that {{cycling-company-stub}} should only have its own category if there are definitely 60 stubs using it. If not, it should place articles directly in Category:Cycling stubs and Category:Company stubs. I can't really see that being a problem, though. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness wrote: "Theoretically that should be done through a discussion at WP:SFD"
Can you make references to this discussion on the WikiProject Stub and other pages where it is needed? --Kslotte (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know your stub rules from before. I could go through the Category:Cycle manufacturers for stubs the get the exact count verified. --Kslotte (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
169 stub articles is verified. One change from my suggestion above is that one of the parent will be Category:Manufacturing company stubs/{{manufacturing-company-stub}} not Category:Company stubs/{{company-stub}}. I will process the change with AWB after a week if there is no objections. --Kslotte (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List ready for processing --Kslotte (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question that come up is what should we do about these categories?
Should we "downgrade" them to country only stub or leave them as such? Since one parent will be Category:Manufacturing company stubs it already includes the 'manufacturing'. Or should we get rid of both and make manufacturing industry specific instead of region specific. My opinion is that a industry specific categorizing is better. Several companies in these days are anyway global; for example headquarter in one country, engineer planing in second and production in third and shareholders from all over the world. --Kslotte (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictorgram created --Kslotte (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Came to my mind that maybe naming Category:Cycling manufacturing company stubs/{{cycling-manufacturing-company-stub}} would match better if as parent is used Category:Manufacturing company stubs/{{manufacturing-company-stub}}. Comments? --Kslotte (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The permcat parent is Category:Cycle manufacturers , so it should really be Category:Cycle manufacturer stubs if we're following that. The tree of categories for manufacturing companies seems to be pretty mixed in terms of what permanent categories are called though. This is a precedent case for WSS, though - we don't have any other sporting goods manufacturer stub types of any kind - even a generic one. In fact, this is the first split of Category:Manufacturing company stubs by product made - which surprises me (I would have expected car manufacturers to have been split out some time ago). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, do you have any opinion of downgrading the country specific? US and UK? Maybe at a later point? --Kslotte (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suspect that once manufacturer stubs start to get split, they will be split on two axes -by product and by country. As such, keeping them makes some sense, if their size makes it worthwhile. I suspect thatCategory:Manufacturing company stubs is small simply because of undersorting of Category:Company stubs (or sorting primarily by ntionality), but I could be wrong. 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Second round of conclusions

edit

--Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. For the sake of form, I would suggest listing the deletion parts at WP:SFD with a link to this discussion. Hopefully it will be a formality, given the extent of this discussion, but past months of WSS/D aren't on the watchlist of too many editors, so some of those with opinions may not have nade them here. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the task list above to 'manufacturer' as the correct stub name. --Kslotte (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion between cycle-manufacturer-stub (top task) and cycling-manufacturer-stub (the bottom two) - I think both should say cycle-manufacturer-stub (and the same for the category). Grutness...wha? 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and I will make sure we proceed through WP:SFD with the deletion parts. --Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done--Kslotte (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/July&oldid=1034574787"