Open main menu

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
WikiProject Stub sorting
Puzzle stub cropped.png
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

On this WikiProject Stub sorting 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.

Contents

Proposing new stub types – procedureEdit

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:
  1. Check the List of stub types or under Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
  2. 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!
  3. Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. You may use this tool to scan through categories; tagged stubs are always in Category:All stub articles and transclude {{asbox}}. 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.
  4. If you use any category scan (from the tool mentioned above or from any other), please link to it so that other users can confirm that the results are still accurate.
  5. Others may do the same, if they so desire.
  6. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or 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.
  7. 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. Some times, it may be difficult to be sure how many stubs would get a tag - in which case you can also start with an upmerged stub tag until you're sure there are enough.

DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. 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. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the correct page for proposals to delete a stub type.

^ . 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"Edit

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. Many templates qualifying for S2 are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/To do/To create.

List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.

Proposals, November 2018Edit

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

NEW PROPOSALSEdit

BreedsEdit

Two for now:

Rationale: Various people (myself included) work intensively on animal breed articles but have little interest in other subjects pertaining to dogs, cats, horses, yadda yadda. While some other dog-foo stub tags could be created (possibly for dog sports, dog-related organizations, and a few other things, I don't have any interest in those, and will leave them for others to propose as they see fit. Another template for breeds exists and its cat. should be a subcat. of Category:Breed stubs: {{Domesticated-pigeon-breed-stub}} (though this template needs renaming; see below). I'm not addressing horse-breed-stubs, etc., at this time, pending further digging around, but am under the general impression that we should probably have such a stub tag and cat. for every species subcat. of Category:Breeds (even if raw numbers might not support a couple of them – the editorial utility factor is sufficient).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Rationale: there is no such thing as a non-domesticated breed; it's explicit in the definition of the word. Ergo, the long name is redundant and pointlessly wordy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

    • What would Category:Breed stubs roll up to? It seems fine that {{dog-breed-stub}} and Category:Dog Breed stubs should just be a subcat of Category:Dog stubs (and same for horses, cats, etc). Once the breed stub articles are tagged, each foo breed stubs category will only have the relevant breeds. I think the renaming of the pigeon breed stub makes sense as proposed though. -Furicorn (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      @Furicorn: to take these a point at a time:
      • I'm not sure what you mean by the initial question. What is "roll up", in this context? If you're asking what the parent stub categories would be for Category:Breed stubs, that would probably be Category:Animal stubs and/or possibly Category:Livestock stubs. If one wanted to limit the latter to only farm animals, then Category:Agriculture stubs (even cats and dogs were domesticated and bred for agri-related purposes, though some modern breeds were developed for other reasons like looks, or sporting ability – also true of various "livestock" breeds like many current varieties of horse, rabbit, and even pig). In the animal tree, it maybe shouldn't be more specific, since some domesticates are birds. We could use Category:Vertebrate stubs, I suppose (I don't think honeybees come in breeds, but subspecies, so it probably is just vertebrates). But that and its parent Category:Chordate stubs seem to be just for "scientific" purposes; it's a taxonomic tree, not a general-interest one (while Category:Animals serves both purposes and presumably so does Category:Animal stubs). Honestly, I don't much care how it "trees out", as long as Category:Breed stubs exists.
      • Ideally, Category:Breed stubs would include all the articles in the species subcats, though I guess it could be a container cat for the most part. (I'm just thinking of editorial utility; I haven't spent any time at SSP in years, so I'm not sure what the current norms are. If the idea is to have something like Category:Dog breed stubs to keep dog stubs out of Category:Breed stubs (except as a single subcat. entry) and thus keep that parent cat. smaller, I understand.)
      • There are breeds of things for which we don't have a non-stub breeds category at all yet, just the overarching non-breed category. E.g. Category:Guinea pigs has List of guinea pig breeds but no Category:Guinea pig breeds (yet). So, any guinea pig (BrEng: cavy) stub would just end up in Category:Breed stubs, not a Category:Guinea pig breed stubs (unless one really wanted that, as a subcat. of Category:Guinea pigs unless/until we did have a Category:Guinea pig breeds). Anyway, List of guinea pig breeds is fertile ground for stub development. I think it verges on accident that we have the breed article clusters we do at present. Many of our breed stubs were created in swathes by individual interested editors (as for rabbits and pigeons). A "guinea-pigger" ("cavyficionado"?) could show up today for all we know and create a dozen. :-)
       — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Category:Breed stubs as a parent for specific breed stubs would do? Her Pegship (speak) 17:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pegship: I do care about that one more than about species-specific subcats., and it does seem to be a bit of a pre-requisite. When it comes to subcats., I would personally care more about {{cat-breed-stubs}}, but I was choosing to work on dog stuff recently, so started with that one, especially seeing that we already have {{dog-book-stub}} which seems far less useful. I'm also, though, a bit of a programmatist about categories. I.e., if we have Category:Dog breeds, and Category:Dog stubs, and Category:Breed stubs, this seems to lead us inexorably to having a Category:Dog breed stubs. If this is wrong-headed, then of course I wouldn't insist on it, but it's how I'm inclined approach categorization, even of the internal, editor-facing kind. If any of this seems badly out-of-touch with SSP norms, clue me in. I haven't been around here since overhauling WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions back in 2007. See how grey my hair is now!  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oak speciesEdit

The category Category:Fagales stubs contains 385 stubs, of which 179 belong to one genus: Quercus, the oak trees. I propose a template: {{Quercus stub}} and a category Category:Quercus stubs, for them. Alternatively, these could be called "Oak stubs". -GTBacchus(talk) 17:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that by the plants project naming convention the category would be Quercus stub. With 179 candidate pages adding that category seems reasonable. However I don't see the motivation for a template; my view is that templates are an obstacle to casual and new editors, and need identifiable benefits to justify imposing that obstacle. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, every stub type has an associated template. That's how stubs are sorted into stub categories. Are you proposing that all of these templates are a problem, and if how, how should stub-sorting work? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lavateraguy: No, it would be Category:Quercus stubs, not Category:Quercus stub - stub categories are always named in the plural, never in the singular: see Category:Stub categories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right - the stub categories are innocuous - and I had forgotten that they were in general use. Though I don't understand why templates are used, rather than category markup statements. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Please don't use the stub categories directly, it's really difficult to track them down. Pages using stub templates are easily tracked. Besides that, stub templates display a helpful message like "This Foo-related article is a stub", optionally preceded by an attention-grabbing icon, and include a further message "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", the last two words being linked, and will edit the page if clicked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
All I'm going for is consistency with literally every single other stub category, each of which has an associated template, and a plural name. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly; but Lavateraguy was asking for a singular name and placing pages the category directly, without using a template. These are both against our accepted practices. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I misspoke: I meant the stub category templates (templates were meant to be understood in context, but in hindsight that wasn't clear), and I was indicating a preference for using the botanical rather the vernacular name - the pluralisation wasn't intended as dispositive? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Quercus over Oak sounds great. The misunderstanding was totally understandable. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Done -GTBacchus(talk) 13:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposals, October 2018Edit

Miscellaneous speediesEdit

US election stubs subcategorizationEdit

As of October 2018, there are approximately 1600 stubs in Category:United States election stubs as well as 7 sub categories for stubs on a state-by-state basis. I propose the creation of multiple new categories to sort through these 1600 stubs:

As far as I can tell, almost all of the 1600 stubs would qualify for sorting into these new categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support creation of state templates, cats when needed. Once the dust settles from that sort, re-evaluate for possible federal types. Her Pegship (speak) 18:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pegship: Would you suggest leaving all state-based federal election stubs (like the 2 mentioned above) in the general stub category, or sorting them into the individual states' new categories? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently the stub categories named "(State) election stubs" contain stubs about every kind of election held in that state, including local, statewide, and federal. I suggest we continue to sort all U.S. election stubs into individual state election stub categories and then see which states need a further breakdown by federal election. Am I making any sense?? Her Pegship (speak) 21:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pegship: Yeah, that makes sense. I would propose sorting them into states, and then perhaps later reevaluating whether they should be in general federal election categories instead of state level categories. But, that can be a discussion for later --DannyS712 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it, the only election that is truly federal is that for the President - and that ain't never gonna be no stub, no sirree. All other elections to a Federal body (the Senate, and the House) are restricted to the electorate of a single state or a subdivision thereof. So the first breakdown should be by state. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it looks like several categories were created in the last month that have fewer than 60 articles. Delaware, for example. -Furicorn (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
There are still 680 articles in the parent category; I suggest we wait a bit and see if more sorting ensues. Her Pegship (speak) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pegship and Furicorn: I am still working to sort these stubs. Once I am done, if there are any categories which are too small, we should discuss eliminating them/combining them. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@DannyS712 and Pegship: I went ahead and used petscan to do a couple analyses:
I think it's fine to make the upmerged templates, I'm just pointing out that maybe some of the categories don't need to be made. -Furicorn (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pegship: I was thinking about it and maybe the next step would be setting up regional categories? I'm thinking of something like what exists for the NRHP stubs, but unless there's a standard way to regionalize I'm pretty neutral about how we do it. -Furicorn (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the standard would be to follow the regional sub-cats at Category:United_States geography stubs, if you want a suggestion. Her Pegship (speak) 21:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Quantum computing stubsEdit

Proposals, September 2018Edit

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.


S1 for 3 counties subcats of Category:Southeast Missouri geography stubsEdit

S1 Creation of Category:Jackson County, Missouri Registered Historic Place stubsEdit

Film director stubs by nationalityEdit

Proposals, August 2018Edit

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

Additional subdividing of College football stubsEdit

Printmaker stubsEdit

Subdividing Acrididae stubsEdit

Category:Ben County geography stubsEdit

Category:Saman County geography stubsEdit

Another family of cricketsEdit

Category:Chardaval County geography stubsEdit

Category:Sirvan County geography stubsEdit

Proposals, July 2018Edit

GobiiformesEdit

Orthoptera, phase IIEdit

Regional Sub Categories for Missouri Registered Historic Place stubsEdit

Subcats of Othoptera stubsEdit

Flanders stubsEdit

Must Overcome Tedium to Handle Stub-sort (M.O.T.H.S)Edit

The moths go ever on and onEdit

Proposals, June 2018Edit

The never-ending moth storyEdit

Ever more mothsEdit

Moths yet again: Proposal for a (upmerged?) template & a template+category (EDIT: &2 more temp+cats)Edit

Speedy creation (S1) of category for upmerged template Scythrididae-stub transcluded on 450+ pagesEdit

Iranian radio station stubsEdit

American football wide receiver, 1990s birth stubsEdit

Proposals, May 2018Edit

PerfumersEdit

Australian people stubsEdit

Propose stub subcategory "Pyrausta (moth)" within stub category PyraustinaeEdit

Stub template/category page for Odostomia, under PyramidellidaeEdit