On this WP:WSS 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.
Proposing new stub types - procedure
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:
- Check at Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
- 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!
- Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. 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.
- Others may do the same, if they so desire.
- 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and 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.
- 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.
DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which is already being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. 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.
^ . 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"
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.
List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.
Proposals, August 2008
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the August archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.
NEW PROPOSALS
Suggest a template upmerged to Cat:Cuisine stubs. There are plenty of stubs that could go here, currently scattered between Cat:Cuisine stubs and Cat:China stubs. Although the China stubs have been overpopulated recently, they're not right now... so, not urgent. Fleebo (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
These stubs have been sorted into the district templates now. I have no tools to tell whether some of those have reached the threshold yet, can someone please tell me how or just check it out please? Cheers! Fleebo (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- The following are at threshold:
- I just generally click on "What links here" when looking at the stub template, and if it's a good number more than 50, I know there are 60 ;). Low tech but generally does the job! Good work on the sorting btw! SeveroTC 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Upmerged templates count over 60 articles.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Speedy. SeveroTC 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also:
I am proposing the creation of three distinct stubs labels for stub articles within the private equity space. Currently private equity related articles are serviced by a a series of different stub types:
The above categories are largely over-crowded and make it difficult to identify topics where an editor can contribute. Additionally, there had historically been less consistency among private equity articles and stub tags varied greatly. By creating a uniform stub type for private equity concepts, companies and people, this will allow members of the Private Equity Task Force to better focus their efforts.
The following page lays out the articles that would fall under the various private equity stubs.
- General: Although the general bucket had the smallest number of articles currently, many articles were recently upgraded and we removed the stub tag (those efforts and the difficulty in finding all of the private equity stubs was a major motivation for this request). My expectation is that long term there are a good number of articles that will be created and this expedites the process of identifying and upgrading these new articles. This stub could also be used generally for articles within the private equity space whether firms or people.
- There are well over 128 current and identified (i.e. articles identified for notable PE firms by members of the PE Task Force) private equity firm stubs at present
- There were well over 60+ stub articles within the private equity investors group.
The full discussion of applicable articles is located here.
Submitted by: |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Azerbaijan geo-stub split
There has been a flurry of activity in the now greatly-oversized Cat:Azerbaijan geography stubs. The bad news is that Azerbaijan is divided into a very large number of administrative divisions. The worse news is that - given the number of new stubs - most of them would probably reach threshold (there are now over 2800 articles in this category!) Grutness...wha? 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Urgent creation needed We now have well over 3200 stubs. Split by Category:Districts of Azerbaijan and upmerge the rayons that don't have 60. The Bald One White cat 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Make that 4,650 stubs--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There is {{japan-railway-station-stub}} which make links to [[Category:Japanese railway station stubs]], and there are 17 prefecture railway-station stub tags ({{hokkaido-railway-station-stub}}etc.) which make links to [[Category:Hokkaido railway station stubs]]etc. which are subcategory of [[Category:Japanese railway station stubs]]. There are 47 prefectures in Japan. For other 30 prefectures, there do not exist tags and categories. Stub articles for stations in those prefectures are categorized directly to [[Category:Japanese railway station stubs]] which has 1306 articles now. So I want to make {{aomori-railway-station-stub}} etc. and [[Category:aomori railway station stubs]]etc. for deviding them into prefectural subcategories. Thank you. Penpen (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- That would be {{aomori-rail-station-stub}}, not {{aomori-railway-station-stub}} (though see the proposal below). A lot of prefectures have templates, but they're currently upmerged because they do not havee the required number of stubs (there are actually 29 prefecture-level stub tags of this sort). I'd definitely support giving all the others upmerged templates, but I would oppose new categories until we know for certain which prefectures reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have counted how many articles link to template etc. I show them here. (It has some error margin.) There are 2 types of templates. One of them makes link to sub-category and the other does not. Some articles link to sub-category without using template.Penpen (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand everything in that table, buit it supports what I thought was the case. Most ofhe prefectures which have enough stub articles for their own categories all have them (some that have categories shouldn't have: Akita and Niigata should be upmerged). The prefectures which probably should have separate categories but don't are Saitama, Toyama, Gifu, Shizuoka, and Okayama (two others, Tottori and Chiba, are very close to threshold). Aomori should have a template, but doesn't have enough stubs for a separate category. And no articles should ever link into stub categories without using templates! It sounds like a serious amount of work is needed to sort this category tree out...
-
-
- I propose making all the remaining prefecture-specific templates (all in the form prefecturename-rail-station-stub):
- Once all of these are made and sorted, it should be obvious which ones require categories (better than depending on a table with "some error margin") Grutness...wha? 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
90 articles tagged with {{denmark-struct-stub}} and {{euro-rail-stub}} or {{rail-station-stub}} - S2 speedy? SeveroTC 11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- {{Denmark-rail-station-stub}} may be preferable - we currently have the parent at {{rail-station-stub}} but the child templates at {{Japan-rail-station-stub}} (okay), but then at {{US-railstation-stub}} and {{UK-railstation-stub}} (plus all child templates from these two at {{foo-railstation-stub}}. Wouldn't it make sense to just have one style? SeveroTC 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I agree one style would be better, and rail-station seems more aesthetic. However I think there are about 25 railstation stubs temps out there, against about two rail-station stub temps.Arsenikk (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Cat:Dinosaur stubs is getting to be pretty big (more than 500 stubs). Looking through the first pagfes in the category, it seems that a lot of the articles are about Theropods. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- 173 of them by my reckoning. Support. SeveroTC 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Such a stub type has been mooted before - looks like its time has come. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Old business
Everything from here on down has passed the five day proposal period. Unless discussion to determine consensus is actively on-going, proposals may be acted upon, to be created, or noted as not approved. Move this marker up as time passes.
Proposals, July 2008
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the July archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.
Proposals, June 2008
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the June archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.
Cat:Opera stubs split -- deja vu all over again
Recall these? How we split them by language? They were mass-undone for our trouble. Two axes appear to be viable:
or
I don't mind which, just so long as it sticks this time, and whatever WPJ input we might get is at least vaguely stub-guideline compliant. Alai (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Might be an idea to speak to the Opera project to see what they want, It was one of them that undid the split I believe. Waacstats (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Which is one reason I'm highly hesitant about their "input". Alai (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Here is the discussion wherein the opera folks decided on a course and acted upon it (without, I believe, discussing it here).
I have suggested that they come by and give us their 2 pfennige. El Grutness beat me to it. <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Waacstats (of WP:WSS) was invited to take part in the discussion - just as I invited you to take part in the current one. When a large number of articles are involved it's essential to talk to all involved. --Kleinzach 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it was me who invited you to takee part in the current discussion. Since it's a stub-related issue, the discussions take place here, which is the central site for all stub-related discussions. As I said at the time of my invitation, anyone from the Opera project is more than welcome to join in here to help find the best way to split this category. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion can't take place if no-one informs us. Why did it take 6 days to tell the Opera Project? --Kleinzach 11:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the "input" (rampant WP:OWNership, bold-faced melodrama, and demands that we ignore all normal stub-sorting criteria), and just how predictable that all was, I think a more pressing question is, why did we bother informing you at all? Alai (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't. I discovered the changes being made and a message was hastily put on the Opera Project. And you quote WP:OWNership! Well, this is certainly owned by you. Nobody else knew about it! --Kleinzach 14:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's a remarkable construction on events. I think you might need to also review WP:AGF. Alai (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've just informed the Opera Wproject. Hopefully we'll get some clearer idea from them which is the more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The previous discussion indicated that WP:Opera was most interested in classification by composer, which because few composers will have 60 operas let alone 60 stub articles about their operas, doesn't work well for stub sorting. However there's another axis that might work, though it doesn't match the existing categories.
- Just throwing out another idea. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds fine to me, if the operistas would find it useful/acceptable/something they wouldn't unilaterally revert without at least telling us. A bit harder to bot-crunch, for the reasons you mention. Alai (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please have the courtesy to stop changing these cats until the editors at the Opera Project had had a chance to comment. I see some 60 or 70 changes have already been made to opera stubs by Pegship - changing librettists' opera stubs into playwrights stubs etc. Can this please stop? For your information we had a similar situation in December (see here). At that time the Opera Project decided against subdividing the stub tag/cat by language. --Kleinzach 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have been sorting out the people in Cat:Opera stubs into other more appropriate stub cats - such as {{playwright-stub}} for librettists, {{theat-bio-stub}} for managers, {{composer-stub}}, {{opera-singer-stub}} &c. A librettist is not an opera, thus does not belong in a stub category for operas. Splitting the stubs by language or period creates necessary distinctions for editors who may specialize in those areas, not to mention breaking the stubs cats into workable sizes, which is less likely to deter editors than a 700+ category. The stub system is not "owned" by either the Opera project or the stub project; the Opera project knows opera, the WPSS knows stubs. Trust us. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Stubs are part of a larger system. If you remove the opera stub it means that the article may not be picked up by bot (or manual) sorting and put in Category:WikiProject Opera articles. It then falls off the radar and is not picked up in bot-created cleanup listing etc. (The project has about 5,000 articles so maintenance is demanding.) It also means that the article is picked up by an unrelated project.
- There is little logic behind the changes you are making. Somebody who has spent his whole life in opera administration should not be given a {{theat-bio-stub}} (with subsequent bannering by the unrelated Theatre project). Someone who is only notable as an opera librettist should not be given a {{playwright-stub}} (with a similar result).
- The Opera Project is using the stubs everyday. Why not trust them to decide what is practical? --Kleinzach 06:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The stub-sorting project is using them every day, too - and finding the size of the category to be nearing the point at which it needs splitting. You seem to be a little confused about what stub templates are, though you're right about one thing: stubs are indeed party of a much larger system - larger than just your one WikiProject. There are thousands of stub types covering over half a million articles. They are not for the benefit of any one specific WikiProject; they are intended to be used by all editors across the entirety of Wikipedia. If you want articles to be marked for sorting by a specific WikiProject, you should use a WP talk-page banner assessment template. I find your comment that the article might be in danger of being picked up by another project both faintly concerning - if another WikiProject improves the article, has harm been done? Or are you for some reason jealous that one of your project's articles might be edited by other editors? Grutness...wha? 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's fine as it is. Splitting the stub by language, period, composers or whatever is impractical. It only creates unnecessary maintenance work - and acts as a deterrent to new editors who will be put off by complicated choices. If it ain't broke. . . --Kleinzach 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A stub category with over 800 articles is considered broken because it is too large, and this tye is nearing being broken. That said, a librettist who is not notable for non-operatic work should probably be double stubbed with both playwright-stub and opera-stub (which is about the genre, not just for individual operas, as its parent cat is Cat:Opera not Cat:Operas. Perhaps {{opera-bio-stub}}/Cat:Opera biography stubs as a catchall for the various opera related professions? Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No one involved in opera editing has said the stub category is broken. The project has just had bot runs without any related problems. --Kleinzach 06:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Further background: There was a discussion in both Deletion and Proposals about operas by language, in April 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps no-one involved in opera editing said that the stub category was close to being broken because none of them are regularly involved in stub sorting. If they had been, they would probably have proposed some form of split here themselves. But that is beside the point. The point is that from the point of view of stub sorting, this category needs splitting. As such, a split is likely to happen sometime soon. It would be nice if we could find a way to split this that is not going to cause problems for the opera project - and as such it would be useful for us if you could suggest the best possible split, given that a split by individual composers is unlikely to work. From the point of view of usual stub-sorting practice, some splitr that in some way mirrors that of the permanent categories would make most sense, but if a different method is preferable, please suggest it. We have suggested two possibilities - if one of them is to your liking, fine; if a different split is more preferable, tell us what.Grutness...wha? 09:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong see what I mean? Alai (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Question & suggestions One of those painful 'operistas' here.;-) I can see why there would be a need to do split some of these large cats, and understand your reasons. I think the question becomes, how best can it be done without sacrificing accuracy and causing unecessary work and/or confusion for either the Stub-sorting Project or the Opera Project. At the moment there are 714 articles in Category:Opera stubs. If all the articles there that were not about a specific opera were removed, that would take it pretty well below the "broken" criteria, even without splitting the operas themselves into subcategories. There are a couple of issues with subcategorizing the operas themselves, especially by composer nationality. First of all, it can lead to inaccuracies re what their nationality actually is given the changes in the map of Europe over the last 300 years. If anything, sub cats by century would be better and clearcut and possibly produce fewer separate stubs for the OP editors to deal with. But even then, you'd have 6 different stubs and starting with the 16th century and the first one would have potenially only 1 member. It's sort of pain for people writing articles on operas. Could we avoid this by having a sub cat for "Opera related bios", e.g. a catchall for the non-singers - librettists, opera critics, opera adminstrators etc. as Caerwine suggested above? Plus perhaps another sub cat for "Opera related topic" to mop up articles about opera companies, organizations, houses, publications, etc.? That would leave the OP with only 4 stub cats to deal with - 1 for individual operas, 1 for opera singers, 1 for opera-related bios, and 1 for all other opera-related topics. I wouldn't find that hard to cope with and actually think it might be an improvement on our current system. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- To clarify: at the moment the project lists 4 stubs:
-
- General opera topics: {{opera-stub}} (715 articles)
- Opera singers: {{opera-singer-stub}} (552 articles)
- Composers: {{composer-stub}} (shared with other projects) (480 articles total)
- European opera houses: {{euro-struct-stub}} (very little used by Opera) (276 articles total)
- It's worth noting that many other classical music stubs cats are large, e.g. Conductors (546 articles), Classical composition stubs (513 articles) etc. --Kleinzach 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- We could get rid of {{euro-struct-stub}} as one used by the OP. Not only is it very generic, it's no help for stubs about opera houses outside Europe.Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, use by the project is negligible. It's a survival from ancient times. I couldn't even get a figure for it. We can de-list it - but it's not an issue. --Kleinzach 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- You may or may not want to list it on your project page, but opera house stubs certainly should have some sort of -struct-stub tag on them (in addition to opera-stub): bear in mind they're not just of operatic interest, they're very often of local and/or architectural significance as well. Accordingly it's appropriate to have them (also) in a stub category that facilitates those editors as well. Of course, an operahouse-stub (or opera-struct-stub, to be strictly hierarchicalist about it) is also something to be kept under consideration... (There's seem to be about 31 of them tagged as opera-stubs, there might of course be more lurking around elsewhere.) Alai (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are a handful more in Cat:Theatre (structure) stubs, at least half a d
|
