MyWiki:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2017/August

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< MyWiki:WikiProject Stub sorting | Proposals | Archive | 2017
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by imported>MalnadachBot at 06:33, 9 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Proposals, August 2017

Cornwall Stubs

{{Cornwall-bio-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
currently 181 stubs I propose that Category:Cornwall biography stubs is created. It will be a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs, which already has two sub-categories, Category:Cornwall building and structure stubs and Category:Cornwall geography stubs. It will have 80/90 stubs to begin with from its parent category, and (hopefully not too many) new stub creations.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Cornwall-org-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was created.

I also propose that Category:Cornwall organisation stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs.

Roughly how many will there be? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
That I'm not entirely sure about, I believe it will be around 70-80, but it could be less (or more). None of the parish councils in Cornwall have articles yet, but probably will at some point that would make another 210. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed and Support. Cornwall is a distinct region and this will help users navigate Cornwall stubs that are organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MattLongCT (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Cornwall-village-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
currently 947 stubs I also propose that Category:Cornwall village stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall geography stubs, which has some 1,100 items in it, many of which are villages. After consideration this has been changed to being a proposal for 3 categories:

Oppose - see below. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
See the revised less specific

A Guy into Books (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Cornwall-area-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
245 stubs, but looks like it could use a lot of category cleanup I also propose that Category:Cornwall area stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall geography stubs, which has some 1,100 items in it, mostly to promote the improvement of the remaining articles on areas. (edited from districts which was too confusing).

Oppose - see below. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Cornwall-historic-geo-stub}}{{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create as revised.
(edited after suggestion by Grutness) I also propose that Category:Cornwall archaeology stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall stubs, to contain articles on hill-forts, archaeological sites and historic places, and history in general. ~100 total articles expected to be in it.

Support - but note several things -
  1. this is for archaeology and archaeological sites - not for general historic items like Kiddlywink or Battle of Sourton Down
  2. it should replace not add to, any current stubbing with UK-archaeology-stub (it should have been, and now is, a subcategory of Category:United Kingdom archaeology stubs)
  3. as with all stubs, it goes below the categories, not above!
You should have waited before creating this, but I've cleaned it up to meet the usual stubbing standards. That's one of the reasons for delaying, so that any problems can be fixed BEFORE the stub is in use! Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, i will let you create the others!. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Cornwall-landform-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create.
currently 131 stubs I also propose that Category:Cornwall landform stubs is created as a sub-category of Category:Cornwall geography stubs, which has some 1,100 items in it, to contain articles related mainly to geological landforms such as cliffs, tors etc. put also articles about coastline sections and AONB areas.

Oppose - see below. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overall comments

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create as revised.
Comments greatly appreciated. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the bio and org stubs, as long as there are enough of them - but as far as the geography stubs are concerned, the standard way of doing it (apart from rivers, for unexplained reasons) is to divide by sub-region (see Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs's subtypes for an illustration), so I'd be against the landform stubs, village stubs, and district stubs. Instead, I'd suggest splitting by the former districts of Caradon, Carrick, Kerrier, North Cornwall, Penwith, and Restormel (there don't seem to be any current equivalents, unfortunately). The other reason I'd be against the sort of split you suggest is that you'd probably find that most of the articles are villages, so you'd just end up with another overpopulated category. There also seems to be a bit of undersorting in the Cornwall-geo category; quite a few of those 1100 geo-stubs should actually be marked with {{Cornwall-struct-stub}} (e.g., Carminow Cross, Church of St Adwen, Advent).

Historic geo stubs is one we don't really have any precedent for, but many of them (especially the hill forts etc) could easily be covered by a more standard {{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}}.

By the way, please note that I've changed the capitalisation of your proposals - they wouldn't fly at all in all caps!) Grutness...wha? 12:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply to - @Grutness:. I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, I suppose a revised proposal for an updated set of geo-stubs is needed. Unofficially, Cornwall can be divided into West, Central and East. [[1]]. each including two former districts. This could be combined with a {{Cornwall-river-stub}}. Perhaps aiming to have about >200 stubs in each new stub category? Or use the former districts and have >100 stubs in each new stub category. A fair amount of stubs will remain in Cornwall-geo-stub's since this will hold the ones that cant be sorted easily.

{{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}} is an excellent idea, I wish I’d thought of it myself before conjuring up {{Cornwall-historic-geo-stub}} A Guy into Books (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about {{Cornwall-river-stub}} since I have noticed Category:Rivers of Cornwall only has 38 pages, and there are only ~70 rivers total (not counting streams) in Cornwall altogether. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added my best guess at stub counts for references to each of the proposed categories. Please note there is double counting in some of the district and people categories, as I couldn't manage to eliminate people stubs from my district queries. -Furicorn (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your estimates do somewhat backup what Grutness was saying about Cornwall-village-stubs being too big, however I like the Cornwall-landform-stubs category so:

These could help break village stubs into manageable sections. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Cornwall doesn't have districts any more; it did at one time, but all of these vanished when it became unitary on 1 April 2009. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'm leaning more towards the West/Central/East divide because of this, at least that's still current. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I repeat - I am strongly against having village stubs and landform stubs, even split by region, for the reasons specified above. And I was not suggesting a cornwall-river-stub, only mentioning that it is the only case (a far as I know) where any type of landform is split by type. The following would be far more in line with our standard stub-sorting methods:

either
or
If the current usage is three unofficial regions, but each of those reasons is simply two former districts, then either would be appropriate.

A {{Cornwall-archaeology-stub}} (but NOT "cornwall-arc-stub"!) would be a good idea, and I'm in favour of it - but should not have been created until discussion was complete, in case there were dissenting views! Grutness...wha? 01:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The category of Category:Landforms of Cornwall was the inspiration for landform stubs but i can understand that it doesn't really fit this project, I still cant see what is wrong with 'arc' as its used in {{arc-stub}}, but my bad. {{EastCornwall-geo-stub}} {{CentralCornwall-geo-stub}} {{WestCornwall-geo-stub}} is my preferred option over using the former districts directly, mainly because they are more recognizable for a non-local person. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know about arc-stub - it appears to have been created and never used by someone unconnected with the project and was never reported here! Basically, we try to avoid shortcuts that would be ambiguous, and it'd be far too easy to assume it was a shortcut for {{architecture-stub}}. It's the same reason we usually use full names for countries and US states rather than using their standard ISO abbreviations. It's probably not too much of a biggie, but any way we can reduce confusion with the hundreds of stub names and keep them consistent is worthwhile :) Grutness...wha? 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. Just out of interest, at what point is this discussion considered closed? Other places have a 7 day/15 day timeframe but im not sure about here. Now that August is over. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The official line is: 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and/or template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
I'd say we're pretty close to consensus now, but it might be worth waiting a day or so to see if there's any new discussion. If not, then it's probably safe to go ahead. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That looks right, yes. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Grutness: . Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  07:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes? Grutness...wha? 12:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Buffalo, New York stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
I propose creating the following structure:

I'm working on the list at (sorry for the pun) User:Od Mishehu/Bison. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm done with the list, and there are 80 NRHPs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plantation stub templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create templates; cats if sufficiently populated.
Hi, if it is the case that I need approval to create upmerged templates, I'd like to create plantation stub templates. There are 642 members of Category:Plantations in North America with {{asbox}}, so I propose minimally created the following templates that upmerge into the state level building and structure stub categories like Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs. I've already created {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} and added it to a couple dozen pages, and I'd like to additionally create the following upmerged templates:

-Furicorn (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're doing this, please start from the root category (Category:Plantation stubs/{{plantation-stub}}) (863 stubs), then work your way down to specific countries where a stub category may be appropriate (doesn't surprise me that the US is one of these), followed by subdivisions of countries with large numbers of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'll work on the following
-Furicorn (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The currect structure is:
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What about this structure?
I'm not sure I see the need for tags at the top two levels
-Furicorn (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, when is it appropriate for a stub category to belong to more than one category? See for example {{SouthCarolina-museum-stub}}, which belongs to Category:Southern United States museum stubs and Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs, both of which ultimately rollup to Category:Southern United States building and structure stubs. -Furicorn (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This is directly related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub template as children of multiple parent stub categories. I see that Category:Plantation stubs was created less than two hours ago, without waiting either five days or for agreement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Hey, that was my bad, I've blanked out Category:Plantation stubs. -Furicorn (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Re your proposed structure of 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC), the first two should definitely have stub templates, {{plantation-stub}} and {{US-plantation-stub}} respectively, since there will be plantations in the USA where there are insufficient examples to justify a state-specific template; similarly, there will be plantations outside the USA where there are insufficient examples to justify a country-specific template. I work mainly with railways: but there are parallels. A recent stub tagging exercise that I was involved in was the railway stations of India: there is Category:Indian railway station stubs which has 11 subcategories for those states where there are 60+ stub articles about stations, each with its own stub template; there are also 19 stub templates which upmerge to Category:Indian railway station stubs for those states with fewer than 60 stub articles about stations. There is also {{India-railstation-stub}} which has two uses: it covers those stations where we don't yet have a state-level template; and also those stations where the person tagging the page as a stub could work out that it was in India, but couldn't work out which state was relevant. So:
  1. Wait for approval here.
  2. Create {{plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles.
  3. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{plantation-stub}}, create Category:Plantation stubs (oh, you already did) and amend {{plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
  4. If you have found that most are in the USA, create {{US-plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles; in many cases, this will replace the {{plantation-stub}}.
  5. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{US-plantation-stub}}, create Category:United States plantation stubs and amend {{US-plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
  6. If you have found that most are in South Carolina, create {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} and add it to some articles; in many cases, this will replace the {{US-plantation-stub}}.
  7. When 60+ articles are tagged with {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}}, create Category:South Carolina plantation stubs and amend {{SouthCarolina-plantation-stub}} to populate that category.
The principle should be that we create when needed, and not in anticipation of a need. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
To be totally fair: I have occasionally first creatd a stub category, and then populated it with at least 60 stubs. In these cases, I already knew (not just suspected, but actually knew) that I was able to populate it with at least 60 stubs before I created the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thank you for the detailed explanation. So in the India example, am I correct in inferring that there was often no information at all about these stations? It seems like that might be the case since there are stations that still can't be positively identified with a particular state in India. So, I definitely understand your approach, it makes a lot of sense if the articles are just a title and a sentence with no categories or clarifying information otherwise. That's generally not the case with these National Register of Historic Places stubs. They are typically already subcatted (with non-stub cats) down to the county. I've learned to use PetScan a little better, so I'll give some clearer references:
For any of those under 60 stubs, I think we should make a state-level template that upmerges to {{US-plantation-stub}}, and for any of them over 60 (NC, SC and Virginia), I think they should get a state-level template and a category (and maybe even some other division for SC and Virginia) Edit: I've added my proposed templates and their categories. -Furicorn (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Stub tags for the US state of Georgia are GeorgiaUS-, not Georgia-, so it would be {{GeorgiaUS-plantation-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
And the category names would be "Foo plantation stubs", not "Plantations in Foo stubs". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok how about this
-Furicorn (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that there is no need for a Category:Plantations by country stubs, and won't be for a long time. Given that there are currently only three articles (none of them stubs) for plantations outside the United States, simply going from a generic Category:Plantation stubs to a subcat Category:United States plantation stubs seems appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with OM's assessment of the names, both in terms of the Georgia stub and the categories. I don't see a need for a specific US-plantation stub, though, given that individual state templates seem natural. I doubt there are/were any US plantations which aren't/weren't in any of the states, so a parent-only category seems a sensible choice. Grutness...wha? 14:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Washington D.C. (which is technically not a state, nor within any state) had plantations, although currently Category:Plantations in Washington, D.C. contains 0 stubs. So that's a hypothetical problem, but something that could be addressed later if necessary. -Furicorn (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Creation of a WashingtonDC-plantation-stub if and when needed would fix that, and given that it would then be part of an accepted pattern of templates, it could be speedied. Grutness...wha? 12:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, can someone please answer the question I originally posed over here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Stub_template_as_children_of_multiple_parent_stub_categories - how do people generally decide whether a stub should tag to multiple categories? For instance {{SouthCarolina-railstation-stub}} and {{SouthCarolina-museum-stub}} tag a page to multiple stub categories. And, should this stub go to multiple stub categories? -Furicorn (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The hyphens in the template name are the cue. If there's no specific Category:South Carolina museum stubs category, then you look to parents in each of those two hyphened parts - a museum stub category and a South Carolina stub category. Given that the most specific South Carolina type is Category:South Carolina building and structure stubs and the closest museum stub type is Category:Southern United States museum stubs, those would be the two usual parents. If there are more than sixty SC museum stubs, a separate category for them can be broken out, and that would have the same parent categories. If in doubt, have a look at similar stub types (what are the parent categories of Category:Florida museum stubs?, where does {{NorthCarolina-museum-stub}} feed?) Grutness...wha? 01:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
To give a more practical example: Until recently, {{Arkansas-bridge-struct-stub}}, having fewer than 60 transclusions, was upmerged into its 3 natural parents; recently, having brought it up past 60 stubs, I created its category - Category:Arkansas bridge (structure) stubs - the stub parents of which being the same 3 parents. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to add a new entry, last time I added a new entry, someone had already made an entry for the month. I'd like to propose 4 new stub categories for Category:South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs - Category:Lowcountry South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, Category:Upstate South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, Category:Pee Dee South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs, and Category:Midlands South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs. I think these categories should be large enough as they each contain multiple counties, and there are >1,200 stubs currently in the top-level category. -Furicorn (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Furicorn: What's the list of counties for each? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Furicorn:I've made a list; there are 18 counties I'm not sure how to place - if you can find the way to do it, we have a viable split here.
The unsorted counties are: Aiken (38 stubs), Allendale (13 stubs), Bamberg (11 stubs), Barnwell (11 stubs), Berkeley (16 stubs), Charleston (98 stubs), Chester (18 stubs), Clarendon (8 stubs), Dorchester (stubs), Edgefield (9 stubs), Georgetown (28 stubs), Horry (29 stubs), Lancaster (25 stubs), Lee (18 stubs), McCormick (18 stubs), Newberry (31 stubs), Williamsburg (12 stubs), and York (51 stubs).
How does this look? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Od Mishehu: I think your scheme looks fine, but I didn't respond earlier because I was looking at 3 schemes:
  1. This one is from some guy with a blog, and was what I was originally using as the basis for my proposal. Although I don't know what his basis for those regions is, the advantages are that it has an even number of counties per region, and not that many regions (and that you have basically done the work setting this up))
  2. The SC Councils of Governments have the advantage of being official and more evenly sized regions than the first example, but there are more regions
  3. SC Tourism regions has advantages similar to the COGS, slightly less official, but maybe more relevant from a NRHP perspective?
I would be interested your opinion on the other schemes. -Furicorn (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
More regions isn't necessarily a bad thing; the question is the size of the categories. The Councils of Government split has one region (Santee-Lynches) with 62 stubs; this is borderline, especially since there may be 1 or 2 overlap, and may result in us needing to cancel this category too soon if some one starts to expand a few NRHP stubs. The Tourism regions is worse - with Anderson, Oconee and Pickens as a separate area, we would only have 42, which is definitely too few. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The first one looks relatively good. the Pee Dee region has 214 stubs and no counties we could separate out into a subcat; the Midlands region has 453, including Richland (a subcat of 133) and 2 other potentially separateable counties, which would leave this region at 215; however, that would be much better than the other split options you presented, and would certainly be better than the 724-stub category we would be left with if we don't split it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, it's helpful to understand your thought process. If the first one is best for our purposes, then here is how I would propose we proceed
What do you think of this revision? Also, I can't always get petscan to reliably do a count. For instance I can't get Category:Plantations in South Carolina with {{asbox}} to return any values, no matter how high I set the depth value, even though its subcat Category:Plantation houses in South Carolina has 84 stubs. Do you know why that might be? Thanks. (Edit: I did some testing and it lookslike it has something to do with copying the text from a link vs copying text alone) -Furicorn (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like what you copied may have had a left-to-right mark (LRM) after it. This is a known problem with some browsers, and in the past I have fixed several instances where the LRM made it into the stub template itself (see for example these seven edits). I normally see them on stub templates set up by Od Mishehu (talk · contribs), as it happens. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no reasonably easy way to see them when creating/eidting a page. When they land in my PetScan requests, I can easily find them and remove them by using the links between the request and the list, and examining the URL. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
A split of SC NRHP stubs sounds like a good idea. It also looks like a subcategory for Richland County (what would be the best format for the category name?) would be useful. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the 3 counties with over 60 NRHP stubs already have stub cats, named in a similar way to other county-level NRHP stub cats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I looked at it briefly, it actually looks like most of the stubs tagged to the Richland county stub category should probably be subcatted to the city of Columbia within Richland county. National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbia, South Carolina has 129 entries, while National Register of Historic Places listings in Richland County, South Carolina only has 36 entries. It might therefor also make sense to make a subcat for Charleston County, South Carolina Registered Historic Place stubs that is just for the city of Charleston which is within the county. I'll do another revision of the groupings. -Furicorn (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is another revision of the groupings that includes the cities of Columbia and Charleston as subcats of their county.

Ultimately, I think it makes sense to take a look at all the location categories of {{National Register of Historic Places in South Carolina}}, and see if we are missing any more locations that need templates. -Furicorn (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably no point in creating a subcat for Columbia NRHPs until/unless we create a base stub category for this city (I would have probably said otherwise if the stub count for its county was 200 or more); there is certainly no need to create an upmerged stub tag for the city of Charleston NRHPs until/unless we create a base stub category for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
What is a base stub category? -Furicorn (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case, the base stub category would be Category:Columbia, South Carolina stubs or Category:Charleston, South Carolina stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC
This may be justified - there are [460 stubs that roll-up to Category:Columbia, South Carolina, and 351 stubs that rollup to Category:Charleston, South Carolina -Furicorn (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
City-level stub categories are more complicated than a simple scan; when deciding whether or not to propose one, iI always sort through them stub by stub. In general, for example, I exclude all articles on individual human beings other than the city's own mayors; and I tend to find many stubs which are actually about the city's suburbs and ot the city itself. Columbia, with your reported 98 NRHP stubs, would almost certainly pass; however, before I can be sure, I need to check each article. I'm currently working on state capitals, but South Carolina is near the end of the alphabet, so it will take me a while. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This revision removes the cities for now, as topics to be revisited later:

-Furicorn (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://70.231.62.181/index.php?title=MyWiki:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2017/August&oldid=11180879"