Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2019/May

Song stubs
I'd like to create stub categories and templates for 1990s-hiphop-song-stub and 2010s-R&B-song-stub to parse down Category:Hip hop song stubs (over 300 stub articles) and Category:Rhythm and blues song stubs (over 90 stub articles), respectively, as well as continue their decade stub categorization schemes. Most will fall into the requested new stub categories outside of a pre-1990s hip hop songs and pre-1950s R&B songs to meet the 60+ needed. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both, provided there are 60+ articles that can use it in each category. I'm not sure Category:Rhythm and blues song stubs will need a 2010s split. Her Pegship (speak) 17:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Norwegian film biography stubs
Category:Norwegian people stubs is over four pages/800 articles; this is one notable absence from subcats. Just manually going through I am fairly confident I can get it over 60. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Petscan shows 97 articles that would qualify, excluding Norwegian actor stubs. Her Pegship (speak) 20:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

College football season stubs by decade
There are currently well over 4500 articles in Category:College football season stubs. No sub-categories currently exist, but obviously some are necessary.

I propose that we sub-categorize the stub articles by decade. As such:

Rektroth 21:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we do this, would you be interested in a bot sorting all of the stubs for you? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ^^ --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That would certainly save time. -- The Man Known as Rektroth 22:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me know once the proposal is closed and I'll file a brfa --DannyS712 (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * it has been well over 5 days - can this be closed so that I can run the bot? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being repetitive: I'd rather not close a discussion in which I've expressed an opinion; it was recently explained to me that that is Not Done. Anyone else? Her Pegship (speak) 21:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

NRHP stubs for U.S. Virgin Islands, and for U.S. possessions in the Pacific
There currently exist 206 articles in generic Category:National Register of Historic Places stubs. The vast majority of U.S. NRHP stub articles are in subcategories already existing: which are further subcategorized by U.S. states, and
 * Category:Midwestern National Register of Historic Places stubs‎
 * Category:Northeastern National Register of Historic Places stubs‎
 * Category:Southern National Register of Historic Places stubs‎
 * Category:Western National Register of Historic Places stubs‎
 * Category:Puerto Rico Registered Historic Place stubs‎
 * Note that the "Puerto Rico" category currently has 91 members. There are 350 NRHPs listed in Puerto Rico, 182 of which have articles so far, and 108 of which are stubs, per wp:NRHPPROGRESS report as of today.  So 168 new articles may be created for existing NRHPs, plus articles for new NRHP listings.

There remain 206 in the remaining, generic "NRHP stubs" category, most of which I see are from the U.S Virgin Islands, from Guam, from other Pacific territories, etc. Per wp:NRHPPROGRESS, the total of stubs in these areas is 189 (35+75+25+25+22+5+2+0=189). (So perhaps 17 in the generic category should be put into already existing categories. But another explanation for discrepancy in numbers is that there are formerly listed NRHP places, e.g. demolished buildings, which properly have a NRHP-stub and are categorized in the NRHP system, but are not counted in the NRHPPROGRESS report, which covers just current listings.  A further explanation is that separate articles are sometimes created for individual contributing buildings within NRHP-listed historic districts, and are not counted in NRHPPROGRESS report.)

I propose:
 * to cover all those on the Atlantic side of the U.S. (all of which are in the U.S. Virgin Islands, besides those in Puerto Rico):
 * Category:United States Virgin Islands Registered Historic Place stubs‎, corresponding to the 87 NRHP-listed places, 44 of which have articles, 35 of which are stubs. It would be possible to further divide this into
 * Category:Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands Registered Historic Place stubs‎ (40 NRHPs, 22 articles, 18 stubs)
 * Category:Saint John, United States Virgin Islands Registered Historic Place stubs‎ (26 NRHPs, 11 articles, 11 stubs)
 * Category:Saint Thomas, United States Virgin Islands Registered Historic Place stubs‎ (21 NRHPs, 11 articles, 6 stubs)
 * but my proposal is to make just one for all of these VI ones together. Note that the number of stubs can grow from current 35 as new articles are created for the 43 current NRHPs that are currently redlinks, for new NRHP listings in VI, and for split-outs of any individual contributing buildings from NRHP historic districts.  I am myself creating more VI stubs these days.


 * Note that there do already exist general geography stubs SaintCroixVI-geo-stub, SaintJohnVI-geo-stub, SaintThomasVI-geo-stub, and their articles are categorized into Category:United States Virgin Islands geography stubs with just the St. Croix ones subcategorized into Category:Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands geography stubs. I think all the NRHP ones, out of these, can be put into just one NRHP-stub subcategory.


 * to cover all the rest, which are all in U.S. territories and other possessions in the Pacific:
 * Category:Oceania Registered Historic Place stubs, corresponding to the 238 (132+37+31+26+6+4+2) NRHPs, 199 (97+35+29+26+6+4+2) articles, and 154 (75+25+25+22+5+2+0) stubs. (See below for detail by each of 7 possessions, and see wp:NRHPPROGRESS.)
 * I wondered if this should be called "Pacific Ocean Registered Historic Place stubs" instead, but the definition of Oceania seems to fit well. Oceania is a generally understood term and is defined to be vast, running from Australia and arguably to include even as far east as Hawaii, so includes all of these.  (The Hawaii NRHP ones are properly covered in Category:Western National Register of Historic Places stubs.  I think "Oceania" is clear in this context, and will be understood to include all of these, without confusion about the U.S. state of Hawaii.)


 * It would be possible to further divide this into:
 * Category:Guam Registered Historic Place stubs, corresponding to the 132 NRHPs in Guam, of which 97 have articles and 75 are stubs.
 * Category:Northern Mariana Islands Registered Historic Places stubs, corresponding to 37 NRHPs, 35 articles. 25 stubs.
 * Category:American Samoa Registered Historic Place stubs, corresponding to 31 NRHPs, 29 articles, 25 stubs.
 * Category:Federated States of Micronesia Registered Historic Places stubs, corresponding to 26 NRHPs, 26 articles, 22 stubs.
 * Category:Palau Registered Historic Places stubs, 6 NRHPs, 6 have articles, 5 are stubs.
 * Category:Marshall Islands Registered Historic Places stubs, 4 NRHPs, 4 articles, 2 stubs.
 * Category:U.S. Minor Outlying Islands Registered Historic Places stubs, 2 NRHPs, 2 articles, 0 stubs.
 * but my proposal is to make just one for all these Oceania ones together. Note the number of stubs can grow from current 154 as new articles are created for the 60 current NRHPs that are currently redlinks, for separation of contributing buildings from historic district articles, and for new NRHP listings in Oceania, which would include on Wake Island and other places where there are not yet any NRHPs.
 * --Doncram (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. The above is a brilliant proposal! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well put! I agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs)


 * Comment/Update: I went ahead and created the stub template for U.S. Virgin Islands NRHPs: VirginIslands-NRHP-stub, and created corresponding Category:United States Virgin Islands Registered Historic Place stubs‎, and populated that.  There are currently 40 stubs now with the template, in the category. --Doncram (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And further I created Category:Oceania Registered Historic Places stubs and found that Guam-NRHP-stub already existed, and I revised the latter to put its articles into the Oceania NRHP stubs category rather than the generic NRHP stubs category. --Doncram (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And further i found AmericanSamoa-NRHP-stub and revised it the same way. At this moment there are 84 stubs in the Oceania NRHP category.  Hey this discussion is great! --Doncram (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, and I finished going through all the original 206 items in the unsatisfactory generic NRHP category, and assigned them out. The final hierarchy is: And in the end there are 148 members of the Oceania NRHP stubs category, and 47 in Category:United States Virgin Islands Registered Historic Place stubs. And only one proper member in the original Category:National Register of Historic Places stubs. All done i think. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Oceania-NRHP-stub puts an item into Category:Oceania stubs and into Category:Oceania Registered Historic Places stubs.
 * This is used directly for Micronesia NRHP ones and other stray ones.
 * Template:AmericanSamoa-NRHP-stub puts an item into Category:American Samoa stubs and into the Oceania NRHP stubs.
 * Template:Guam-NRHP-stub puts into Category:Guam stubs and into Oceania NRHP stubs.
 * Template:NorthernMarianaIslands-NRHP-stub puts into Category:Northern Mariana Islands stubs and into Oceania NRHP stubs.
 * Template:Palau-NRHP-stub puts into Category:Palau stubs and into Oceania NRHP stubs.
 * Ready to be closed, I think. Pegship or other regular here, is this okay, and could you close? Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Australian rules biography, 1910s birth stubs
Category:Australian rules biography, 1910s birth stubs currently has over 1,000 pages. I propose that it be split by year of birth (1910-1919). Each year has enough pages for a category: To make the split easier, I also propose that a bot (mine) go through the 1000 pages and update the stub template accordingly. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1910: 105
 * 1911: 101
 * 1912: 89
 * 1913: 109
 * 1914: 123
 * 1915: 114
 * 1916: 110
 * 1917: 104
 * 1918: 98
 * 1919: 93
 * Support per nom. Her Pegship (speak) 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since BRFAs usually link to a discussion that agreed that a bot run would be okay/desired, do you also support a bot implementing the split? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Her Pegship (speak) 16:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * it has been well over 5 days - can this be closed so that I can create the templates and run the bot? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not close a discussion in which I've expressed an opinion; it was recently explained to me that that is Not Done. Anyone else? Her Pegship (speak) 21:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Music award stubs/Science award stubs
Currently Category:Award stubs is overpopulated; a cursory scan several Polaris Awards, a bunch of Dove Awards, some Grammys/Latin Grammys/Swedish Grammis, various standalone awards. There are also several music awards in Category:Music stubs, and many sorted into Category:Music event stubs. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Science awards are also another large, broad category (and even larger if you say the IEEE awards, of which there are dozens, qualify) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Holy cats, support both per nom & overflow! Her Pegship (speak) 16:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Cycling race stubs
Currently, Category:Cycling race stubs, which is populated by 1 template, has 2,426 different stubs in it. Below is a list of specific races where the current category contains 60 or more stubs that are the yearly iterations of the race. Each of these should have its own new template and category:
 * Paris–Roubaix: 81 stubs are iterations of the Paris–Roubaix
 * UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race: 63 stubs are iterations of the UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race
 * Tour de Romandie: 58 stubs are iterations of the Tour de Romandie
 * Volta a Catalunya: 71 stubs are iterations of the Volta a Catalunya
 * Liège–Bastogne–Liège: 93 stubs are iterations of the Liège–Bastogne–Liège
 * La Flèche Wallonne: 75 stubs are iterations of the La Flèche Wallonne
 * Gent–Wevelgem: 74 stubs are iterations of the Gent–Wevelgem
 * Tour de Suisse: 69 stubs are iterations of the Tour de Suisse
 * Omloop Het Nieuwsblad – Men's race: 61 stubs are iterations of the Omloop Het Nieuwsblad
 * Giro di Lombardia: 80 stubs are iterations of the Giro di Lombardia
 * Milan–San Remo: 72 stubs are iterations of the Milan–San Remo
 * Paris–Tours: 102 stubs are iterations of the Paris–Tours

Together, these would reduce the cycling stubs category to only 1521 pages.

I'd like to further propose that a bot (mine) go through and replace these stub templates, so that editors don't need to manually subcategorize 900 stubs. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support split per nom. Also, are there more articles in that should be moved to these categories? Her Pegship (speak) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any, but once this is created (if it is) I'll do some further analysis. I was thinking of a new stub template (but not a separate category) for races with 30-59 iterations that are currently stubs, and classifying those separately will make it easier to see what pages may need to be categorized. Also, since BRFAs usually link to a discussion that agreed that a bot run would be okay, do you also support the bot edits? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the bot edits in order to populate upmerged templates, per y'all. Her Pegship (speak) 16:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * it has been well over 5 days - can this be closed so that I can create the templates and run the bot? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not close a discussion in which I've expressed an opinion; it was recently explained to me that that is Not Done. Anyone else? Her Pegship (speak) 21:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)