Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive6

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting‎ | Proposals

Proposals, September 2005 edit

Proposal for New Jazz Stub edit

Proposed by J. Van Meter

hi all, i'd like to propose this new jazz stub: {{jazz-stub}} to clarify and organize the huge number of music and musician stubs, and also tie in the many jazz festivals, jazz producers, songs, albums, etc.

for example, it could be applied to:

...to list just a very small portion of them.

i think the jazz contributors would be well-served with this new classification. let me know. (hope i've formatted this proposal entry properly.) thanks, J. Van Meter 03:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC) 1 september 2005[reply]

While I agree with the proposal, normally one proposes things (and then waits a week for consensus) before creating them: {{Jazz-stub}}. --Mairi 03:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-oops, so sorry. thought it had to exist in order to be proposed. J. Van Meter
Nope, the proceedures are at the top of this page. The category also still needs to be created... --Mairi 04:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-understood. but aren't i supposed to wait a week to do that? J. Van Meter 11:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is to create the category and template at the same time - articles can be "lost" otherwise (long story - it's the way templates work). Normally you'd wait a week to make both, but since the template's already there, the category should be too. Wait a few days before you start stubbing articles with the template, though, just in case there are any objections (though I doubt there will be). Grutness...wha? 11:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-thanks for the input grutness. i didn't tag any of the articles yet. i knew to wait for the approval process, so i'm a bit confused about how things might become lost in the meantime. but i'll take you're word for it and get to work today to create the category now too. should i list it in the stub category page, or should i wait on that part?J. Van Meter 12:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a glitch in the way templates work when they assign things to categories. If the category is added after articles are stubbed, the articles don't appear in the categories and have to have a null-edit done to them to make them appear. If a category's heavily used, the non-appearances may get overlooked, so the articles effectively "go missing". Grutness...wha?
-ok, per grutness's instructions, i've created the category (and placed it as a sub-category on the music stubs page). again, i'm very sorry to have gone out of order on the proceedure steps. i read the whole entry prior to starting and thought i'd done it properly. i'll continue to wait before i start tagging. J. Van Meter 13:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would definitely prove to be a very useful stub. I approve this proposal. Haon 04:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely sounds useful. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch of geo-stubs edit

I've just finished this month's check of geo-stub numbers, and the following look ripe for splitting:

The Vietnam one in particular would be very useful.

Someone is happily writing stub articles for every tiny rock off the coast of massachusetts. even if a few of them end up vfd'd, there should be plenty for this stub.

Probably more than that in each case, because I haven't yet added in articles that straddle two counties. Again, someone is busily creating new stub articles on Shropshire. The Sussex stub would cover both of the two counties that used to be Sussex (East Sussex and West Sussex), in the same way that Yorkshire stub covers North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, etc. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it {{WestVirginia-geo-stub}} (no space) to be consistent with the other state stubs (for example, {{NewYork-geo-stub}} and {{NorthCarolina-geo-stub}}). I'd also like to propose {{Virginia-geo-stub}} at this same time, too. It currently has between 70 and 80 articles, and it would be easier to split it out at the same time as West Virginia. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Right of course - the space was a slight slip of the keyboard, which I've corrected. And it probably is a good idea to deal with Virginia at the same time - the Southern US category is pretty full. Grutness...wha? 14:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Merseyside, too. it's got 90 stubs and is growing fairly fast. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but think that for the sake of consistency, if you're going to have a stub category for one English county, you should have one for all of them. Combining the parts of Yorkshire, Sussex, etc. makes sense, although not having a Staffordshire geo-stub seems silly when there is a Shropshire one, for instance. Although some may not meet the required 60-100 articles straight away, it would make a lot more sense. Similarly for US states, Canadian provinces, etc. (RFBailey 18:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The aim of stub templates and stub categories is not consistency, but usefulness. If there are not enough articles for a certain category, that category apparently isn't useful enough yet. It is irrelevant how many comparable categories there are. Categories have to be viewed in their own light, not in the light of their "brothers" and "sisters." Aecis 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of entering/editing articles, or if categories are for presenting information in an organised manner, then surely consistency is important, as well as useful. (RFBailey 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Usefulness is the prime consideration here, though of course consistency is also important. But consider this. If we were going to favour consistency over usefulness, we would have a geo-stub category for every country on the planet. We'd have one for Dominica, for instance - even though it only has one stub article. That would be a waste of our time and a waste of editors' time. Some US states and English counties have the same problem (though not quite as extreme as that). As far as Staffordshire is concerned, it will almost certainly soon get a stub category of its own at some point - it is approaching the 90-100 threshold we've been using for splits of English counties (it has 77 and is currently tenth ranked out of counties without their own stubs). From the point of view of the effort involved in splitting off and sorting counties, though, it makes sense to deal with a few at a time, starting with the biggest ones. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created stubs and associated categories for Massachusetts, Virginia, and West Virginia. I know it's only been five days since they were proposed; but these are fairly "low risk" (plus I'm taking a wikiholiday and wanted to get these created beforehand). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
OK - I'll put up the lists for those states on my geo-stub splitting page. Grutness...wha? 09:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand politician stubs and French politician stubs edit

I propose two separate stub tags, {{NZ-politician-stub}} and {{France-politician-stub}}, for New Zealand and French politicians. While sorting through all of the {{bio-stub}}s, I noticed myself sorting a lot of articles under {{politician-stub}} and {{NZ-bio-stub}}, and {{politician-stub}} and {{France-bio-stub}}. I did two Google searches to find out approxamately how many stubs there are for each tag, and the results were:

Comments? Jaxl | talk 04:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds viable. I'm surprised there are that many Kiwi ones, but with an election looming in two weeks, a lot of stub articles on candidates have probably been written recently. Thumbs up from me. Mind you, be warned - that sort of google search may overestimate slightly due to chance combinations of words. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured the searches weren't entirely accurate, but I'm under the impression that there will probably be more NZ politician stubs popping up because, like you said, the election is approaching soon. Also, note that I didn't search for "New Zealand politicial figure" or "French politicial figure", so there may be more out there... Jaxl | talk 15:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Polymer-stub}} edit

I'm back from holiday and back on the trail of clearing out {{chem-stub}}! Polymer-stub has the advantage of having Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers behind it, so I hope that you will find it acceptable. No logo for the moment, but all suggestions are welcome. Physchim62 00:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History Stubs edit

I just got through with sorting the history stubs and managed to cut them down by about half. I didn't keep an exact count on possibile new sub groups as I went through, but I did find myself wishing for the following stubs to help reduce the size, stubs which I think would pass the 50 stub barrier.

{{Ancient-Greece-stub}} - {{Euro-hist-stub}} just isn't appropriate for some of these as the ancient Greek world crossed over into modern Asia.
{{Armenia-hist-stub}} - Some of these might be AfD candidates as well since it seems like someone added every piece of Armenian trivia they could, but I don't know enough about Armenian history to judge them.
{{China-hist-stub}} - {{EAsia-hist-stub}} would be slightly more inclusive, but I didn't encounter much in the way of Korean or Japanese history stubs.
{{SAsia-hist-stub}} - trying for a neutral name since some of the old places and personages on the Indian subcontinent don't fit into the pigeonholes of the modern states there.

{{Arab-hist-stub}}, {{Persia-hist-stub}}, and {{Africa-hist-stub}} would also be nice, but I don't think they cross the 50 stub threshold at the moment. {{hist-bio-stub}} might also be a viable category if there are enough entries in {{bio-stub}} of historians to justify it, but from those that had just {{hist-stub}} it wasn't. Caerwine 07:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be {{historian-stub}}, in line with e.g. {{economist-stub}}? Aecis 21:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that the majority of occupational bio stubs follow that format (the exceptions are largely an attempt to make the stub gender neutral, and in the case of {{mil-bio-stub}} service branch neutral) but we also have {{law-bio-stub}} with {{lawyer-stub}} as a redirect for a counter example. {{hist-bio-stub}} is slightly shorter and if we ever go for a single standard on these, it will have to be {{*-bio-stub}} so that's why I prefer that form. Caerwine 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely historian-stub. Hist-bio-stub sounds like biographies of historical characters. "Occupation-stub" is the far easier standard when it comes to later possible splits by nationality. The reason law-bio-stub is like that is so as to cover lawyers, judges, and all other legal occupations. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What Grutness said - law-bio- has the same rationale as mil-bio-, and this doesn't seem necessary for the historians. --Joy [shallot]

I've decided to be conservative for now and only create {{Ancient-Greece-stub}} and {{historian-stub}}. I'll keep track of the others as I reparse the history stubs with these two and make certain that there are enough for the others. Caerwine 20:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished doing a more exact survey/recatting of the history stubs. I'm glad I decided to be conserative as none of the additional primary proposals I made above had more than 50 stubs when I went through. Partly that was because I was aggresively applying appropriate biography stubs this time, and partly because the I restubbed the Chinese pagoda stubs as structure stubs instead of history stubs. With the history subs down now to the <600 range I also son't see the need to be aggressive in creating subcats just now. Applying a threshold of 60 existing stubs, I get 120 for {{Asia-hist-stub}} (not including the Middle East) and 98 for {{MEast-hist-stub}} assuming that Armenia is included in the Middle East. Considering that the Armenian stubs are pretty uniformly for a time when Armenia extended much further south and east than it does now, it certainly makes sense to me to do so. Caerwine 08:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs and cats for Asian and Middle Eastern history have been created Caerwine 20:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{MEast-hist-stub}} edit

I think a {{MEast-hist-stub}} would easily pass the 50-stub threshold, if one includes all of what are now the Arab League countries, plus Turkey, Iran, Israel, and Cyprus. I've started a list of candidates on my user page, which currently stands at 21 just going from A to B. My only concern is whether an {{islam-hist-stub}} would be more helpful. Can the Caucasus countries (such as Armenia) be considered part of the Middle East? --skoosh (háblame) 15:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd be happier if the boundary was the same as for geo-stubs, and the Caucasus, Turkey, and Cyprus weren't included, but I suppose that historically they are much more closely associated with the Middle East, so I won't object if the wider area is used. I think that it makes more sense that an Islam-hist-stub. Islam-hist-stub would overlap a lot with Africa and Europe (especially Spain), and only goes back to about 800, so it might not be a very useful category - although there would be a precedent for that split with JewHist-stub. Of the two, I'm more in favour of MEast-hist-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History stubs are now down to <300. There is no further need for subcating the history stubs at this point, tho at <700 and <500 respectively the European and US history stubs are large enough that it might be wotrh doing a serach for subcats there. In any case this topic is sone for now and should be archived the next time gets thenergy to do some archiving. Caerwine 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti Stub edit

Articles identified:

There may be more.

HalD 02:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we normally need at least 60 stubs before a stub type is worth doing. In any case, all three of these would be bio-stubs, anyway, rather than general country-stub candidates. A {{Caribbean-bio-stub}} would probably be very useful, though, to cover both these and articles about other caribbean people. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More, wth current stub settings. I suggest gathering therm into Haiti People and Haiti Places.

Caribbean Stubs --> Haiti Places

  • Artibonite
  • Bois Caïman
  • Gonaïves
  • Hinche
  • Jacmel

Bio Stubs'' --> Haiti People

  • Georges Biassou
  • Dutty Boukman
  • Buteur Métayer
  • Jean François
  • Jeannot

Military Stubs --> Haiti People André Rigaud

Étienne Polverel France stub -- Haiti People Politician Stubs --> Haiti People Raoul Cédras René Préval politician stub

Political Party Stubs --> Haiti organizations Fanmi Lavalas political party stub

12.217.186.109 04:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Halcatalyst[reply]

Far too many categories for Haiti at present. there are nowhere near enough stubs for any of these. The largest possible stub category here would be Haiti geography stubs, and there are currently only 22 of them in total. Compare that with fellow Caribbean countries Trinidad and Tobago (61 stubs), Dominican Republic (51), Cuba (41) and Puerto Rico (50), none of which are yet at threshold. Grutness...wha? 07:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Proposal: On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types page there is no stub at all listed for Haiti. For this page I propose TWO new subdivisions. Both these changes would make it more efficient to sort stubs related to Haiti. At present, as demonstrated above, they are lost in the shuffle.

  • Geographical
    • Place-related, by region - general
      • North and Central America
        • Caribbean Stubs
          • Haiti (new)

This entry would parallel Cuba stubs and Caymans Islands-related stubs

  • People
    • People by nation or region
      • North and Central American people
        • Haitian people stubs

This entry would parallel Belezian people stubs, Canadian people stubs, and American people stubs.

Specifically, the following would go under Haiti Geographical and Haiti People:

Geographical: Artibonite, Bois Caïman, Gonaïves, Hinche, Jacmel

People: André Rigaud, Georges Biassou, Dutty Boukman, Buteur Métayer, Étienne Polverel, Fanmi Lavalas (political party), Jean François, Jeannot, Raoul Cédras, René Préval

HalD 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Halcatalyst[reply]

That's still only 15 stubs. Under these circumstances, only {{Haiti-stub}} is an option, imo. And if that category grows, the geo- and bio- categories can always be split off. Aecis 21:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons you have made are either with categories which were incorrectly created from outside this project (e.g., Belizian people stubs, which may well soon end up at WP:SFD), or are well over the threshold level (Canadian and American people stubs each have many hundreds of articles). One separate Haiti-stub may just be viable, but even then it would be a very small category compared to the thresholds we use. I wonder if you misunderstand the purpose of stub categories. They are not separated in the same way as standard categories, but only when there are so many stubs in a larger category that i would make it difficult for editors to find stubs they are looking for. At present, there are not a huge number of stubs in the Caribbean stub categories, and it is still easy to locate Haitian stubs within them. As such, I don't really see the need for separate categories at this time. I can understand you wanting separate categories if Haiti is a country that interests you, but unless the number of stubs increases, it's not really viable or necessary. My advice would be to create more stub articles on Haiti - if there are clearly enough articles, it is inevitable that a separate stub will be created. Take geo-stubs, for instance. At present, with 22 geo-stubs (and a threshold of around 70) there are clearly not enough Haiti stubs. If, however, you were to write stub articles on a further 60 places in Haiti, it would be over the threshold for the creation of a stub type. But until there are more stubs, there'd be little point in it. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, How about only one stub -- Haiti? I would be content to leave geography aside and use this for people, culture, history, society, etc. One motive is to bring more visibility to Haiti, since places and peoples it typifies (especially those without touist connections) are so often overlooked and forgotten.

12.217.186.109 22:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Haiti-stub}} might be viable. So far, I've found about 50 Haiti-related stubs. I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt and see whether it can reach the threshold. Aecis 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-mil-stub}} edit

Many, many stubs from United States-related stubs and Military stubs could be filtered into {{US-mil-stub}} (and associated category United States military stubs). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Definitely. Was surprised this one doesn't exist already, when I happened across such a stub. Logical sub-cat, and there certainly seem to be plenty of 'em. Alai 00:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I too was very surprised this didn't exist. See also my comments on the "Discoveries" page about redirecting the newly discovered and horribly named {United States Armed Forces-stub}} to it. Grutness...wha? 09:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created, found stub template redirected there. I'll propose the category for deletion once null-edit-emptied. Alai 01:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist bio stub edit

I have found many people who do not fit in any other stub category (see below), but they are convicted or suspected terroists so I think it would be benificial to have a terroist bio stub. All of the below people either have a bio stub or a country bio stubkralahome 3:42 UTC, September 9, 2005

Unless "Terrorist" is a nationality, that would be better as {{terrorist-stub}}. However, we have had this discussion in the past, and the name is a very POV one. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, and we'd soon have to start patrolling Category:Terrorist stubs to make sure that a certain neutrality was maintained. And that's not the sort of work this project was created for. Two of these atre, in any case, Indonesia-bio-stubs (which I didn't realise we had...). And we could probably do with a {{MEast-bio-stub}} for the other two. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of potential problems, one of those articles on the list, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, makes no assertion of any terrorist activity or allegation of terrorist activity, only that he was detained as an unlawful combatant by the US. Which doesn't necessarily mean that even the US gov't alleges that he's a terrorist. --Mairi 04:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with G and M. I'm not sure there's even a very clearly defined "profession" here -- bombers, media producers, and unspecified material witnesses -- much less the still-POVer questions like ends and means. I'd rather they remain under their respective countries, and whatever main category they might merit, rather than open this particular can of worms. Alai 04:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having a Middle East Bio Stub does seem like a better idea. kralahome 9:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see my {{crime-bio-stub}} proposal further down the page.--Carabinieri 15:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-writer-stub}}, {{France-writer-stub}} edit

I have been bad by being bold and created these two. I've been sorting through {{writer-stub}} and without even being halfway through, I've encountered over 60 stub articles appropriate for each. This way, as I continue sifting I can send these there directly. Thee are others that deserve creation as well, but there may be some nits to pick, so I'll wait until I have a complete census and propose them properly. Caerwine 02:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty... yeah, these don't look as though they'll cause anyone any harm. But you really should wait (it's hard enough getting no WSS people to wat now, without giving them excuses!) Grutness...wha? 02:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Netherlands-stub}} edit

I keep on running across stubs that could be marked with this template, and each time I'm amazed that it doesn't exist. (The latest was Special school). Any objections? Grutness...wha? 06:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a Dutchman: no, I don't have any objections ;) Aecis 08:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, just listed the associated category on "discoveries"! Or the category that thinks it's associated with this non-template, as it were. For some reason a template of this name was deleted a couple of months ago, and a handful of articles currently "redlink" to it (or to the lack of it...). I'd be inclined to 'speedy' this one, due to it being such a gaping hole in the category scheme, at least if we get a couple more yays, and no nays. Alai 06:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ill add a yay. BL Lacertae 06:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - well not quite speedied, but four days seems reasonable, since the category already existed... :) Grutness...wha? 01:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Croatia-bio-stub}} edit

Few days ago I created {{Croatia-stub}} (I didn't know I had to propose it here, but everything went well, and experts say stub category is well formed), and the category is now growing at rather large rate (it has 62 articles as of this moment, which is 3 days after it's creation). As more than 30% of stubs in that category are bio-stubs, and category is expiriencing it's initial filling, it is not hard to see that when filling is done, there will be a need to create {{Croatia-bio-stub}} and move the bio-stubs there. So, I reckon it would be better to create the category now and bypass the work of moving stubs from {{Croatia-stub}} to {{Croatia-bio-stub}}. Oppinions? --Dijxtra 10:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Indeed, the Croatian politician stubs may actually warrant another stub subcategory for themselves :) But let's just have Croatia-bio-stub. --Joy [shallot] 22:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I jostled through Category:Political_parties_in_Croatia, and my!, Croatia really has to many political parties. I think we'd need another stub category for those as well... but, let us take one step at the time. :-) --Dijxtra 09:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hurried up a bit since nobody complained and since {{Croatia-stub}} had over 100 articles (including bio stubs) 7 days after it's creation, 37 of which were bio stubs... --Dijxtra 17:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various math stubs edit

The Mathematics related stubs are in need of some more subdivision, as there are currently over 1000 entries in Category:Mathematics stubs. Some of these can go in the current classifications, but there are some obvious grouping that are not included, and probably have a lot of potential entries. I propose {{analysis-stub}} and {{algebra-stub}}, which would cover analysis, and algebra respectively. These are fairly general, so should cover a significant number of these entries. There are other categories that might be useful too, such as probability, set theory and category theory. I think we should probably start with the first 2 categories, then see what we have left. Silverfish 17:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another possible one might be geometry-stub, although I don't know how the numbers would stack up for that. Anyone keen to do a break-down? Grutness...wha? 19:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a {{geometry-stub}} --Mairi 19:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! (slaps forehead) Grutness...wha? 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there are 5 math categories at the moment, on Cryptography, Geometry, Knots,Numbers, and Statistics. I'm proposing Analysis and Algebra as 2 new ones that I want comments on, and any suggestions on other topics to cover. Silverfish 21:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'll try to do a count tonight to see what other topics would make sense. --Mairi 22:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very useful. A couple more subjects to consider, as well as those mentioned above, are graph theory and combinatorics. Silverfish 22:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Analysis could be a tricky one - it has many meanings in maths, some of which overlap statistics and number theory. Can't see any way around that though - if you called it something like maths-function-stub it would overlap algebra. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the overlap with stats and number theory, are you referring to p-adic analysis, and Analysis of variance. If so, we can probably specifically exclude them from analysis. Perhaps {{Math-analysis}} would be better as a title, addressing Mathematical analysis-related subjects, and using that article as the basis for what to include. We could possibly include related topics such as Measure theory (related to Lebesgue integration), and metric spaces (with a concept of distance, and thus continuity). Silverfish 13:40, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject is limited enough for most of the things you mentioned to be beyond me. But in many analytical sciences the name "statistical analysis" is used for techniques from random sampling through to ANOVA and chi squared. It seems to me that, given this name, trying to divide mathematics into statistics and analysis will be a bit confusing. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I think Mathematical analysis is a reasonably well defined area of mathematics, and we should use that article (and the section desribing the various areas of analysis) as our guide for what to include. There are other topics which include analysis in the title, such as statistical analysis, which aren't really part of mathematical analysis, but seem to be using the common meaning of analysis as the result of analysing something. I've done a bit of analysis below, by the way, to give a rough idea of the likely size of each category:

Subject Count edit

I've done a rought list of how many articles there are in a variety of categories, some that I've proposed, and some other possible categories. It is just for the letter A. The * indicates where I've listed something twice. Using A is a bit misleading, as it gives 5 articles starting algebra, boosting the total, but even with that we get 6 other articles on algebra, versus 3 for the most common other categories. I'm considering whether to just go with algebra to start with, then see what we have left after that. Note I've missed some subjects off the list, where I'm not sure what the subject should be, or where an article could be part of more than one subject. I'll probably do some more of this on other letters too. Silverfish 18:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cellular automata

Information Theory

Books and publications

Algebra

Algorithms

Graph theory

Analysis

Organization

Game theory

Journals

Combinatorics

Proof theory

Finance

Probability

Mathematical logic

Category theory

Numerical analysis


I did thru D (about a quarter of the templates), and got 49 for algebra alone (plus 15 for group theory and 8 for algebraic topology), so it's definitely viable. Analysis got 36, so it most likely has enough for the overall category. Number theory got 27, so it is probably be useful. Combinatorics would also likely be useful, as including discrete math and graph theory it has 26. I also think a logic-stub could be useful, as there were 24, and there are possibly some in {{philosophy-stub}} also. --Mairi 04:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based, on that I think we should go with algebra (Algebra-stub), analysis (Math-analysis-stub, and combinatorics (Combin-stub), and mathematical logic (Math-logic-stub) to start with. I'm not sure on number theory, given we have a number stub category, that I've been interpreting to include number theory. Perhaps we should change Num-stub to Num-theory-stub. What about probability? Did you look at that? Silverfish 16:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the Number stub is restricted to articles about specific numbers or types of numbers, so not all of those would necessarily fall under Number Theory. So it's probably fine keeping that and have a seperate num-theory-stub; there might be a handful of articles that get double-stubbed. I only found 4 probability stubs; it's possible some of them are in {{statistics-stub}}, as the distinction between the two isn't necessarily clear-cut. --Mairi 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. It might be best to leave the number theory issue for the moment, use the 4 categories I suggest, then see what we have left after that. Silverfish 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, It's been a week, so I'm about to start creating the stub categories. I'll start with {{algebra-stub}}, as that's probably going to be the biggest. This will be the first template I've created, so I'd appreciate it if someone would check I'm doing things correctly. I'll then move on to {{mathanalysis-stub}} (not sure on the name here (would a hyphen be useful between math and analysis?), {{combin-stub}}, and {{Mathlogic-stub}}. Silverfish 12:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine. Only one thing, the last argument for {{Stub Category}} is the corresponding main category (not the parent category in stub hierarchy). One has to add the parent stub category by a normal category link. And I think no hyphen makes sense. --Mairi 04:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as WP:STUB is concerned:
C: Insert the name of an appropriate higher level category, for this example it would be road transport stubs. If you have broken your new stub out from an existing stub category, it would be advisable to list this category here.
--TheParanoidOne 10:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the example actual uses Category:Road Transport, and that fits with the template placing the stub category under µ of the higher category. --Mairi 04:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{philosopher-stub}} edit

After a few months of double-sorting those people with bio-stub and philo-stub, I'm convinced that there's enough material here to warrant its own stub. I was reluctant to propose it earlier because of a potential for abuse (branding people as "philosophers" could be construed as POV in some contexts), but it seems to me now that we have way too many academics in the field of philosophy now that the amount of possible abuse will be peripheral at best. --Joy [shallot]

  • Yeah, go for it. I'm sure you're right about its usefulness. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, seen quite a few that could use this stub while sorting on the scientist stubs. --Etacar11 23:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far I've sorted philosophers either into writer stubs or academic stubs, but a philosopher stub category would be much better.--Carabinieri 18:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree, there's a lot of {{bio-stub}}s that need this tag. Jaxl | talk 18:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While sorting Bio stubs, I noticed that there is a need for a stub category for philosophers; currently it is only possible categorize them under writers or academics or according to their origin.--Carabinieri 18:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, I didnt notice that it was already September and that there is already such a proposal in the September proposals section, so I guess nevermind this proposal--Carabinieri 18:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created it, and went through the Philosophy stubs category up to (incl.) the letter I, and there's 108 articles in the Philosopher stubs category now. --Joy [shallot] 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{crime-bio-stub}} edit

I propose that a stub category be created, to include people who are notable for committing illegal acts: terrorists, famous criminals, etc, because it is often difficult to categorize such people.--Carabinieri 20:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea as far as categorisation, but it needs to be carefully and narrowly defined to avoid abuse. Needs to be limited to people who are notable primarly/only for their [alleged] criminal activity, not just anyone who ever [allegedly] committed a crime. --Alynna 00:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem I now thought of is, people, who committed illegal acts but who aren't seen as criminals by most people. Take for example Gandhi; he is most famous for his peaceful resistance against the British Empire, which was unlawful but most people wouldn't call him a criminal. Under the currently proposed definition (someone who is primarily/exclusively known for (allegedly) committing criminal acts), many political activists would fall under this category; yet if we were to categorically ignore political crimes for the purpose of categorization, many terrorists would also have to be excluded.--Carabinieri 15:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a definite grey area. The gulf between Nelson Mandela and Radovan Karadzic is immense, but both would qualify technically as political criminals. Where along the continuum do you make the boundary? Also, would crime-bio-stub only be for criminals, or also for those best known for catching criminals, such as police and private investigators? Grutness...wha? 11:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of including police and so on but that is a good idea; while sorting out bio-stubs, I did run accross a few police chiefs and so on, which I only categorized according to the region.--Carabinieri 11:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{poli-bio-stub}} edit

I would also find a person stub category for people involved in politics, who aren't politicians: political activists, campaign managers, etc.--Carabinieri 20:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{politician-stub}} could be a daughter category of this category, if it is created.--Carabinieri 20:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this would be useful, as it covers people that don't have any other good category. Probably enough stubs too. --Mairi 06:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
another suggestion somewhat related, further down the page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Activism_Stubs
--naught101 01:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{MEast-bio-stub}} edit

A Middle East bio stub category would make sorting a lot of people a lot easier.--Carabinieri 15:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Israel-bio-stub}} edit

I think there are enough Israelis to warrant such a category.--Carabinieri 15:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See the current Israel-stub stub. I'll start moving them to this better stub. --YUL89YYZ 14:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{LAm-bio-stub}} {{Caribbean-bio-stub}}, {{Mexico-bio-stub}}, {{CentralAm-bio-stub}}, {{SouthAm-bio-stub}} edit

I think we need a category to cover all Latin American countries, which do not currently have their own categories.--Carabinieri 15:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd divide this up into Mexico, CentralAm, SouthAm and Caribbean, the same as with the geo stubs, because the term "Latin America" is open to some interpretation. Some definitions do not include Brazil, the Guianas, and Belize, for instance, since Spanish is not the primary language. Dividing by continent is probably a little easier. Whether there'd be enough for a separate Central America bio-stub is perhaps questionable, but the rest should reach threshold, I'd think. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also my note a few sections down on caribbean-bio-stub.... Grutness...wha? 13:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question, that Brazil is part of Latin America. Brazil is the very reason why it is called Latin America and not Spanish America (Portuguese is also a Latin-derived language). But I guess I don't object to dividing it the way Grutness suggested.--Carabinieri 15:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do there need to be extra-proposals for each of those categories or is it good enough, if they're discussed here?--Carabinieri 16:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. To be honest I'd forgotten this proposal was going on when I added the one on Caribbean-bio-stub below. As long as we get a few more comments from othr people, it's probably safe enough to just change the heading (as I've done). Grutness...wha? 05:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - all three created (the Mexican one already existed). A day early (oops), but still. Grutness...wha? 10:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean-bio-stub edit

I was speaking to our resident expert on Trinidad and Tobago (User:Guettarda) re geo-stubs (more on this in a couple of days...), and he suggested that a caribbean-bio-stub would be very useful. I don't know the numbers, but I suspect he could be right. I doubt any Caribbean nation would have enough stubs on its own for a bio-stub category (Cuba might be an exception), and there was a recent call for a stub suitable for Haitians, so this might be a reasonable one to make. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote under the {{LAm}} stub proposal, I definately support creating such a stub.--Carabinieri 16:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive6&oldid=1086085905"