Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Archive/2005

message: I am wondering if, expecially for some of the larger stub categories, it might be best to increase the level of hierachy. For example, The arts, then Music stubs, then Book stubs (fantasy, sf, etc.), etc. For example:
===The arts===
* This music...
** This album-related...
** This article on a band or other musical ensemble...
** This article on a composer...
** This article on a musician...
** This article about a specific song..
* This book-related...
BlankVerse ∅ 06:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea. And book-stub would go under lit-stub. Make it so :)  Grutness|hello?  07:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: * This music...
** This album-related...
** This article on a band or other musical ensemble...
** This article on a composer...
** This article on a musician...
** This article about a specific song..
* This book-related...
BlankVerse ∅ 06:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea. And book-stub would go under lit-stub. Make it so :)  Grutness|hello?  07:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The arts

message: Stumbled over this one, located in a Photo-request stub category. Is this a Stub template? Twthmoses 02:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, and it shouldn't be listed as such - it's like listdev, sectstub expand and the other templates for decent-sized articles that could do with a bit more added.  Grutness|hello?  04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was recently created by User:Cwolfsheep (along with :Category:Photo-request stubs), and is being put onto Wikipedia articles in the same place that a stub should be. There is already Template:Picneed (which is currently listed at WP:TFD) and Template:Reqimg (associated with :Category:Articles that need pictures and Wikipedia:Requested pictures). It is better looking than  Template:Reqimg, but there should only be one version of this template, and they all should be on the article's talk page instead of on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅  07:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it certainly shouldn't feed a stub category. Listdev doesn't, neither does whatever the "request for expansion" template is. This shouldn't either. I see you've added it to tfd, too (if you hadn't, I would have!)  Grutness|hello?  11:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Photo-request]]

message: It seems to have survived a proposal to detelet it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, so where should it be added to the stub listing?  Does it count as a religion? Remuel 02:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or a myth? yeah, I suppose that's where it would go.  Grutness|hello?  07:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Eris-stub]] 

message: Just to let you know. Kappa 23:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Why do people do that? More work doing null edits on all its contents.  Grutness|hello?  00:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:skateboarding-stub]] has no category

message: A new stub category was added to the list today under econ-stub called ... econ-stub. Same spelling. Same target. Just different description. Was this a typo, or ... ?
--TheParanoidOne 05:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a typo - it was the new money stub - I copied and pasted the line but forgot to change the tl :)  Grutness|hello?  06:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. OK. That makes sense. :) --TheParanoidOne 12:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Econ-stub

message: I think a turkish stub should be created, not just a turkish geographical stub. - (Erebus555 13:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly... suggest it over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (which is where it says to at the top of this page! :)  Grutness|hello?  00:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish stub 

message: Can someone point me to a truly comprehensive list of stub types?  I just used music-theory-stub, which wasn't listed, but it worked fine.  (It's listed now because I just added it.)  This leads me to believe there are plenty more stub types that aren't listed on the stub types page, including ones that could probably be quite helpful in the sorting process.  Any help would be appreciated. --Jemiller226 19:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisted stub types 

message: I'm not sure whether this is the proper place to ask, but... Is there a category that fits articles on protests, demonstrations, activism, etc.? In the approved list I've only found "socio-stub", which seems too general. See for example rent strike, or the protest article itself. If there's no fitting type, what's the procedure to propose a new one? --Pablo D. Flores 13:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one currently (a special stub type, that is). The procedure for making a new one is to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria and propose a new stub type at the end of the current month's list of proposals (be warned, it's a fairly big page). There's generally about a week allowed for suggestions, counter-proposals, and the like, and if there aren't any objections by the end of the week then you can either make the template yourself (following the "how to" procedures on Wikipedia:Stub) or just wait for one of the regular stub-sorters to do i for you. By the way, since one of the usual criteria is having a lot of stubs it might be worth either looking for more stubs that can use the template or expanding the scope of the stub (say to include things like strikes and lockouts). Sounds like a rasonable proposal though. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub category for protests?

message: I propose an alteration to the format for representing redirects on the stub types listing.  I've put an example of what I propose at the  listing, which redirects to  in the Art category.
The difference amounts to using a short form
*  ..blah blah..
** *R 
versus a long form
*  ..blah blah..
**  Redirects to  (*R)
The new format is meant to decrease the wording on the page and de-emphasize redirects versus "preferred" templates.
I'll not do any more damage :) until people have had a chance to speak their mind on this matter.
Regards,  Courtland 16:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Like it - good idea  SoM 21:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation of redirects with *R 

message: responding to removal of stub reference from page category
 is a child of  if you take a look at the category; therefore, it belongs where it is placed in my opinion, despite it's not following convention.  Also .. why the exclamation point? It's not like I just broke a Ming vase or anything.
:Following on from my opinion to some discussion of hierarchy organization ... Should the page reflect the actual parentage of stub templates and their categories or not?  Further, should the page be descriptive or proscriptive, should it describe what the relationships are or should it be used to shape those relationships?
Courtland 13:03, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
:A minor additional point ... I could have removed  from being a child of , but I chose to leave it as it was, opting for a descriptive representation of the hierarchy on this page rather than a proscriptive one ... though I have changed some categorizations to fit what is on this page, so I've not been 100% consistent in being descriptive.  I've added to the question above a second to reflect this.  Also, I've not forgotten the roles that these pages and stubs in general play, so I don't need to be reminded of that once more :) . Courtland 14:13, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
The exclamation point was because it looked clearly incorrect in the hierarchy, and I still think it is clearly wrong there. If it's left there it seems to suggest two things - 1) that the only items that can go in it are biographies 9wrong), and 2) that there will never be a need for a separate brazil-bio-stub (also wrong). Since bio-stubs are likely to be the next thing to be broken out (as the largest stub category - four times the size of :Category:Stub - I was simply "preparing the way" for the likelihood that they will be split in the same way that geography stubs were. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil-stub placement under people-stubs 

message: Having just done one, a stub message for flora and fauna (or one apiece).
:Have you seen the animal and plant stubs on the stub types page? Aren't they sufficient? --TheParanoidOne 17:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubtypes

message: I note that every line now ends in a double parenthesis... any reason? Grutness...wha? 09:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a undeliberate mistake, but easily fixed. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deliferate misgake?

message: Another user has created a new stub type: Template:Operetta-stub.  --BaronLarf 20:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:This was proposed on June 14th. As far as I can tell, there were no objections, and so it has been created. --TheParanoidOne 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operetta-stub 

message: I changed all the "as at"s to "as of", but the change got reverted.
"As of" is a common English idiom meaning that a certain condition existed at a certain time.  "As at" is a grammatically incorrect oddity I have never seen before today.  Perhaps what is meant is simply "at", but the word "as" is redundant at best.  If people prefer "at" over "as of" then I'm in favour of changing to that.  --Doradus July 1, 2005 02:45 (UTC)
:"As at" is a perfectly acceptable idiomatic form meaning "at that time". The number of stubs shown is the number as it was at a particular time. "As of" means "since that time", and suggests that there have been no further additions to the list in that time, and is therefore incorrect. At on its own is simply ungrammatical. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
::This sounds like a regional language variation at work. In my experience (primarily in the Southwestern US) "as of" is the preferred version with "as at" being unused.  That said, I find no real difficulty understanding either variation. --Allen3 talk July 1, 2005 03:19 (UTC)
::Grutness: I wasn't aware of the "as at" idiom.  Perhaps "as at" and "as of" are equally valid here.  (Dictionary.com hasn't heard of the former, but Google turns it up all over various uk and nz web sites.)  Neither makes sense at face value -- the "as" is either redundant or nonsensical -- so their correctness relies on their idiomhood.  I think in North America at least, the "as at" idiom is unknown and sounds like an error.  Can we opt for the more neutral "on"?  (As in "<200 on June 29"?) --Doradus July 1, 2005 11:38 (UTC)
I will not accept "as at" as grammatically correct (and natural) English for the context in which the phrase is used. "As of" and "as on" are correct, readable, and generally understandable. The word at is more often used in reference to a place, such as "the forum was bustling with activity as at Rome". Sometimes, "as at" is used in reference to a time, but for a natural voice the phrase is similar to "...as at 10:00 PM on Saturday". "As" is also useless in phrases such as, "As at the time of this writing..." Notice that in both of the latter phrases as can be removed without changing the meaning of the statements. I encourage simplicity in literal composition. Adraeus 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my suggestion "below. Grutness...wha? 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Here in New Zealand we use pretty much the same English as the UK (with minor tweaks) - and "as at" means "at that time", whereas "as of" means "since that time". Since we haven't counted the stubs up since the times listed, "as of" is wrong in this part of the world, at least. However, as I said before, a better solution is to ditch the "as at/of" completely, and use something more like the suggestion I've put further down the page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#Shortening even further. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As at" versus "as of" 

message: After reading "please discuss all new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria" in the intro paragraph, I went there and spent a while before understanding that it was intended for new stub categories rather than stub pages. So I'm about to add the word 'categories' to clarify. Hv 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, it's actually brought in by the 'newstubs' template. I don't know how to update that. Hv 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the word "types" for a little more clarification. This word has been used rather than "categories" because a stub type encompases both a template and a category. --TheParanoidOne 20:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro update 

message: Is  for articles about Wikipedia (History of Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia...) or for Wikipedia:      pages? CG 08:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:Good question - this one was not created by WP:WSS, but seemed useful enough to keep. The template says "For Wikipedia-related stubs", and seems to be being used for both articles in the article space about wikipedia and also for short pages in the Wikipedia space. Given the number of pages it's used on in total, I don't see too much problem with it being used for both. Stub categories as a whole as a bit of an anomaly as far as "article or wiki-space" are concerned, anyway, becaause they're primarily for the use of editors rather than readers, so having one category that crossed between the two spaces isn't likely to be a huge concern. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Wikipedia-stub}} 

message: The page is getting fairly large (current 93 Kb). How about moving each "top level" section to a seperate sub-page and just provide links to them (along with some descriptive text and such) the main "stub types" page. Granted it might be a little over the top for some of the smaller sections, but for the sake of completenes I think they should all be moved rather than some kept on the main page while others are moved. Just a thought. --Sherool 00:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're right that it is getting very long, but the whole point of creating the page was to have all the stubs listed on one page. So splitting it up kind of defeats the purpose. Perhaps someone can come up with other possible solutions? Grutness...wha? 07:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only solution I can think of would be using transclusion. Have seperate pages for all the top categories, and then have this page include those. But the only reason i'd see for doing that would be if people were running into collisions often when editing it. Unless some people run into problems viewing this page because it's so large? --Mairi 04:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it's actually time to start pruning the list, somewhat. For example, ,  and  have all been at <10 for about 3 months (or more). I'm sure there are a number of others in the list that have very low counts that could easily be merged with a parent. --TheParanoidOne 05:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably is. Of the three you name, note that Kazakh-stub would be covered by the currently proposed CAsia-stub. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting up page? 

message: Corrected less-than sign ( < to <, U+003C ) (see presedence of × vs x at monitor resolution).
...Not. So there's a minus sign and figure dash (and more... - ⁻ ₋ − ‒ – — ), but the less-than sign is the same as the html address character. Great, how will WP communicate its superiority now? {Seas 08:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what? --TheParanoidOne 19:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it baffles me, too. In any case, the less-than sign is only part of an URL if it's in a string ending with a more-than sign - which none of these are. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: There are a lot of new stub sub-categories in their respective categories. For large pages such as :Category: Bio-stubs, wouldn't it be better to have a listing of the sub-categories as well? Xhin 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand this. All the official subcategories are listed. If there are any which aren't then they're ones that haven't gone through ddue process and haven't been discovered yet by WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I mean to list them on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, like how some, but not all stub categories are listed there. Xhin 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, all the official ones are listed there. If there are any which aren't then they're ones that haven't gone through due process and haven't been discovered yet by WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And if you know any that aren't on there, please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries (assuming they're not already listed there). --Mairi 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to update? 

message: Why isn't  listed? It has 39 in it. It's... Thelb4! 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not listed because it wasn't proposed. However, it's already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. If you know of any other stub types that aren't listed here, on WP:WSS/P or the Discoveries page, please list them on the Discoveries page. --Mairi 22:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switzerland-bio-stub 

message: Hey folks. Isn't there a way to come up with the top level Template:Vehicle-stub real fast and then work on refining that into its sub-stub templates as things get sorted out? That way I could replace the embarassing Template:Van-stub that now resides at Tank truck.  Thanks, --hydnjo talk 21:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vehicle stub

message: I'm working on some articles dealing with so-called demogroups and a lot of the articles about these groups are currently very sparse. Unfortunately, there's not a suitable stub-category for these groups and people doing stub sorting keep putting them in all kinds of different categories, such as org-stub and bio-compu-stub. Is it a good idea to create something like a computer culture category for stubs? Let's say compu-cult-stub for instance? This could also house all kinds of other hacker/computing culture stuff. Nmrd 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals where it belongs. --Alynna 15:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on stub 

message: Do stub bios of race horses go under animal stub, sports stub, or something completely different? 
Chemturion 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: would probably be what you're looking for. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A case could be made for a triple stubbing as , , and .  I know that I personally have been double stubbing animal actors with  and  (using sub types as appropriate). Proposing additional sub types of  is on my to do list nce I finish my cyrremt efforts with history stubs. Caerwine 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has attention been given to whether this practice of referring (in the context of stub-sorting) to "bios" of animals creates confusion about what i believe is clear re WPrj Bio (and what i know is clear re List of people by name -- which the project treats, along w/ :Category:People, as fundamental), that only non-fictional humans need apply?--Jerzy•t 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's abit off-topic, but :Category:Fictional characters has :Category:People by status as a parent... Mairi 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race Horces 

message: :Category:Music biography stubs appears to be part of the Music stubs hierarchy, yet it is not listed in WP:WSS/ST. It has no template, no articles and is the parent of Musical group stubs (parent should be Musician_stubs), Musician stubs (parent should be Music_stubs) and Composers stubs (parent should be Musician_stubs). Do we need it? --Bruce1ee 07:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not already listed at WP:WSS/D, note it there.  At a glance, it appears that there was a template that was redirected to ... --Alynna 21:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it at WP:WSS/D. --Bruce1ee 08:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music stubs hierarchy 

message: :moved from the top of the page
I was replacing the Daniel Emilforkpage's stub. He was born in chile, but acted in France (and was of Russian and Jewish acsent). My problem is, are actor supposed to be classified by where they born (so he would be placed under Actor stub) or where he acted (so the French actor stub will be used). Right now he is under Actor Stub.
:Is he better known as a Frenchman or as a Chilean? Use whichever the answer is. Double-stubbing would also be possible if he's known as both. I wouldn't bother with his ancestral links though, for the purposes of stub sorting. Russell Crowe was born in New Zealand and works in the US - but he's usually thought of as either Australian or a New Zealander, so double stubbing with Australia and NZ would be right for him. Yul Brynner was born in Mongolia (IIRC), but was known as an American actor, so US-stub would work for him. Ah-nold would get both Austria and US (and would also get California-politician-stub)... and so on. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Actor Stub Naming

message: Why does  claim to be about biographical articles?  Is that really what it's for, and if so, why not call it ? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only recently changed to specify biographies only, most of the articles it's used on aren't biographies. I've changed it back to any articles about marketing. --Mairi 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing stub/Marketing bio stub?