Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)

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 upmerged templates

[edit] {{1900s-novel-stub}}, Category:1900s novel stubs

[edit] {{1910s-novel-stub}}, Category:1910s novel stubs

[edit] {{1920s-novel-stub}}, Category:1920s novel stubs

Having just gone through the Category:Novel stubs to sort them into the categories Category:1930s novel stubs, Category:1940s novel stubs, Category:1950s novel stubs, Category:1960s novel stubs, Category:1970s novel stubs, Category:1980s novel stubs, Category:1990s novel stubs, Category:2000s novel stubs, I came across numerous earlier in the century that could do with sorting. There is a Category:19th century novel stubs which caters for the earlier articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't some of these going to be a tad small? Support templates for all, certainly, but categories only if there's 60, otherwise upmerge. Alai 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support upmerged templates per Alai, and categories for any that exceed 60. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 both as insectivora

I counted 60 articles in the Mammal stubs category related to moles, shrews and hedgehogs, all of which belong to the order Insectivora. Eli Falk 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Insectivora and Insectivore two different things? Monni 13:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Insectivore is a word with two meanings:

1. An animal which eats insects
2. An animal from order insectivora.

Eli Falk 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that make the category name ambiguos? Monni 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since the non-stub parent would be Category:Insectivora, Category:Insectivora stubs would seem better. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Per CW. Alai 03:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 paramilitary as per Swpb

See my subpage User:Swpb/Proposed terrorism stubs for a list of pages to be included. I have identified 74 articles for {{terrorist-stub}}, 103 for {{terrorism-stub}}, and 36 for {{terrorism-org-stub}}. I propose feeding the latter two to the same category until {{terrorism-org-stub}} passes the 60 mark, although assocition with Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism may make the threshold 30 - I'm not a member of that project, and I'm not clear on how the wikiproject association rule works. Not sure the best way to go about this, suggestions would be much appreciated. I am honestly surprised these stubs don't already exist. Totally reorganizing categories and tags per Grutness, see discussion below. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The thing about this is that it'd be extremely controversial. Category:Terrorists has been nominated for deletion many many times. It opens us up to a lot of subjective arguing. Incidentally, it has a mention in Words to Avoid. Just a massive can of worms, that's all. Crystallina 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thus, the tags would be worded as neutrally as possible, for example, the terrorist-org tag would read something like "This article about a group or organization which has been associated with terrorism" rather than "This article about a terrorist organization", and terrorist-stub would read "This article about an individual accused or suspected of terrorism or membership in a terrorist organization" rather than "This article about a terrorist". Terrorism-stub would simply read "This terrorism-related article..." (without the italics). I realize there is some potential subjectivity to this, but I think the overwhelming need for these stubs, evident by the sheer number of categories across which these articles are spread, overcomes this concern. While not everyone agrees on a strict definition of terrorism, I think in general associating the word with "acts of violence against groups of non-military personnel" is pretty fair. Nearly all of the articles I have included already use the word terrorism or terrorist, or refer to activities of groups almost universally agreed to engage in terrorism, such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the IRA. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, I think it is important to note that Category:Terrorists has survived it's numerous CfDs. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Survived with no consensus; it got deleted once but overturned on DRV. It's still rather controversial and the lines get very fuzzy very fast. Crystallina 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • They do tend to get fuzzy, no arguement there. I just think this would be more of a boon to people with expertise in the subject than it would be a detriment to the project. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeThis stub is just way too subjective for me. If we don't support disputed place stubs, then this is definitely not satisfactory.--Thomas.macmillan 03:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to oppose as well for the same reasons. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter - we're way into POV territory when we start using terms like this. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• There must be some fairly NPOV way to tag stubs related to extra-military violence. Even if the word terrorism must be avoided, I think this is a needed addition. Can anyone propose more neutral terminology? —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • how about paramilitary-org-stub and paramilitary-bio-stub for paramilitary organisations and individuals? Not exactly the same scope, but close enough to cover a lot of the same ground. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I like it. I would also like to cover articles about terrorism in general, the study thereof, and the responses to it. I believe there may be enough articles to form such a category. If there are, what name would you suggest? There are also certainly enough articles to fill a category on specific terrorist attacks. Paramilitary-attack-stub perhaps? —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The word "terrorist" is indeed problematic, but a scope about paramilitary activity sounds workable. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK, so far I have collected 92 for paramilitary-action-stub, 149 for paramilitary-bio-stub, and 61 for paramilitary-org-stub. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, as amended. Alai 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

Would take care of all the sporting competitions, multi-sport events, etc. that are currently in the top sport stubs category. This will meet threshold - there are roughly 200 articles a page and these take up about half the front page (X year in Y event article formats). Also, if anyone knows of a better name, go ahead and mention it. Crystallina 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support and cheer loudly, as parent is oversized again. Alai 03:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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've added at least sixty stub articles on African artists over the past week; combined with the stuff I've found looking through the "artists-by-country" category, I know there's more than enough to justify creating a new stub category for them. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are over 60, it sounds useful to me. Support. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, this one is getting a bit thin to do by country, and this seems a lot more usefully specific than my rather feeble Euro- suggestion. Alai 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking a bit out of turn, perhaps, but the only country I can see gaining enough articles for a seperate stub category any time soon is Zimbabwe; if I push matters a bit, I can create enough stubs to fill that one out within a couple of days. I'm hesitent to suggest it because as yet there's neither a Zimbabwe-bio-stub (hey, I'm asleep at the switch - that one was created when I wasn't looking!) nor an African-artist-stub. From what I can tell, there isn't enough information available to fill any other country out for the forseeable future. (signed, putting my art history degree to some use at last) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't mean just that there's no African country over 60, but there's no further countries at all, that I can find. OTOH, if you can write 6 Haitians, 14 Poles, 22 Spaniards, 25 Belgians, or 28 Dutch... (Bet the Netherlands are miffed to be trailing their neighbours...) Alai 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

Looking through the US-bridge-struct-stub category I think there are at least 40 or so articles tagged with US-bridge-struct-stub and US-rail-stub so I propose creating this merged into the two parent cats at first and then creating an appropriate category once it reaches threshold.--Carabinieri 12:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

64 NZ-geo-stubs are now marked with the wellington-geo-stub template, and there's still some undersorting - time this got a separate category, methinks. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Alai 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

While searching for articles to populate Cat:festivals in California, I found several short film festival articles that had no stubs at all, or that had {{festival-stub}}, but film stub. I looked for a film festival stub, but didn't find one. I did find film festivals in the following categories:

• Cat:film stubs 8
• Cat:film award stubs 48
• Cat:film organization stubs 30

That's 86 articles without looking for more unstubbed articles, or film award articles that might be hidden in some of the other film stub categories. ^BlankVerse 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• ISTR that this was proposed several months ago and was approved, but seems not to have been made (IIRC the idea was to split out music festivals, film festivals and religious festivals, or something like that - anyone remember the details?). If my memory is correct, then this can probably be speedied... but I'd like confirmation that my mind isn't up to its usual tricks again :) Grutness...wha? 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought this was discussed as well, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'll keep digging, but in the meantime, support. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My best guess is that there are probably enough short music festival articles to get their own stub as well. ^BlankVerse 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as I grow weary of classifying film festival stubs under {{film-org-stub}}. And the discussion was back in July, hosted by our very own Grutness. Cheers, Her Pegship 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hurray, Pegship! I only looked back through August because I didn't think it was that long ago (my, how time flies). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• No wonder it sounded familiar :) Grutness...wha? 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

My assault on the European football bios continues:

• {{Hungary-footy-bio-stub}} / Cat:Hungarian football biography stubs - 73
• {{Israel-footy-bio-stub}} / Cat:Israeli football biography stubs - 62
• {{Austria-footy-bio-stub}} / Cat:Austrian football biography stubs - 54

I realize the last is undersized, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more hanging out untagged, and it's not like you'll hurt my feelings if you say no.  :-) --fuzzy510 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support all Nomatter if we have 60 for the last or not, the growth potential is certainly there. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

• Cat:United States television episode stubs 556
• Cat:Children's television episode stubs 313
• Cat:Animated television episode stubs 296
• Cat:Comedy television episode stubs 289
• Cat:United States children's television episode stubs 176
• Cat:Doug episode stubs 115
• Cat:Sitcom episode stubs 112
• Cat:Seinfeld episode stubs 84
• Cat:Drama television episode stubs 71

Parent is now over 800. Alai 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, especially specific show categories that make 60; the genres are looking pretty large and this is undersorted from {{tv-stub}}. Crystallina 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely a good idea. NauticaShades 14:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

• Cat:Drama television character stubs 146
• Cat:Comedy television character stubs 91

Parent is now oversized. Alai 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; the parent is probably also undersorted from {{TV-stub}}. Crystallina 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. NauticaShades 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

• Cat:Poem stubs 236
• Cat:United Kingdom poem stubs 107
• Cat:Poetry collection stubs 63
• Cat:Years in poetry stubs 55

Poetry-stubs are five listings pages (i.e., > 800 articles). If we lump in the by-decade and by-century stubs, the last-mentioned (by some name or other) is more than viable. Alai 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest the following as well

• Cat:Poetic form stubs
• Cat:Poetry movement stubs
• Cat:Poetry award stubs

I'll add in the numbers if I get the time. Stumps 08:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, and if the poetry award stubs don't add up, how about broadening it to Cat:Literary award stubs? Cheers, Her Pegship 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. What would the Years in poetry be for, however? NauticaShades 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The numerous stub articles in Cat:Years in poetry, such as 1265 in poetry. Alai 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

Seemingly we're splitting these by currently-underpopulated decade-they-played types (were these proposed?), but by-country might have some legs, despite clearly massive undercategorisation. DR is at 68, Cuba 32, US at 25 (!), Canada at 21. Alai 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 upmerged template

This stub template would, obviously, be used for punctuation-related stubs (such as Stet).

I'll try and see if I can find some others that need this tomorrow. Blast 11.22.06 2306 (UTC -5)

Seems unlikely to me that you'd find enough stubs for it, but if you do then it might well be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The cited example isn't punctuation, it's a proofreading mark. There's an existing Cat:typography stubs; I wouldn't be opposed to an upmerged {{punctuation-stub}} feeding into that category, if people feel the need, and there's some middling number of stubs. I'm almost certain there's not enough in the Cat:punctuation permanent category (and one smallish subcat) for a fullblown type, though. Alai 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

Although I haven't counted them I'm 100% sure splitting {{Asia-bank-stub}} and {{Euro-bank-stub}} from the 4-page long {{bank-stub}} would be viable.--Carabinieri 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 take to SFD

Already been created, apologies. Greater than 30 articles within scope, of course. drumguy8800 C T 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

...but no WikiProject, which means it needs 60. Also, since it isn't a subcategory of Worth-stub, it should be FortWorth-stub. If it's needed at all, which I doubt. Given the size of Dallas-stub's category, it would make far more sense to have both in one category. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of issue that I was talking about the other day. Cat:Cities in Texas exists, yet has no stub category in it or any of it's sub-categories. Cat:Dallas stubs and now Cat:Fort Worth stubs are sub-categories of Cat:Texas stubs, which itself is a sub-category of Cat:Texas... in other words, it's a mess! Unless i'm missing something, bothe Dallas and this new stub (if indeed neccesary) should be members of a Cat:Cities in Texas stubs shouldn't they? --Ohms law 07:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And as I said at the time, we don't want to create all such stub categories, because we don't want several hundred thousand types (as there are permanent categories), and we don't want articles stub-tagged with every possible category they should be in. The qualifier "if necessary" is correct, and key. Alai 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's fine, but we seem to be in the habit of creating our own category trees within the "{whatever} stubs" categories that we do create. This is my primary critisizm here. In this particular instance, my opinion would be to sfd both Cat:Dallas stubs and Cat:Fort Worth stubs (and by extension, to sfd this {{Fort-Worth-stub}} template). Then, the articles in the current Cat:Dallas stubs category, as well as those that would be in the Cat:Fort Worth stubs should go into a Cat:Cities in Texas stubs category. So, I guess what i'm saying is that this proposal should be changed to be a proposal for a Cities in Texas stubs category and template, for the reasons stated. --Ohms law 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean by "our own category trees". Every stub type is in the (permanent) category tree, and the considerable majority of them have a direct "permanent parent". I really don't for the life of me see why you're saying that Cat:Fort Worth, Texas shouldn't have a corresponding stub-cat, but that Cat:Cities in Texas stubs should -- the former might be marginal, but the latter doesn't make any sense at all, sorry. Are you objecting to "skipping a level" in the hierarchy... or what? If you're simply looking for a broader scope, wouldn't that of Cat:Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex or Cat:Tarrant County, Texas make more sense? Alai 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at it this way. The category Category:Beaches of Monaco exists. it contains the one article on a Monegasque beach that exists in wikipedia, and - given the country has a coastline of 4100 metres - mch of which is harbour - it is hardly likely we will get many more. Let's say there are two more beaches in monaco worthy of articles. That would leave a Cat:Monaco beach stubs with at most three articles, and likely no articles at all. There is a very good reason why we have a minimum threshold for stub categories: to stop editors needing to check dozens of categories to find articles they can expand. it is likely, for example, that anyone who can edit articles on beaches in Monaco knows enough about the country to edit articles about Monaco in general. Thus, we have only Cat:Monaco stubs. In exactly the same way, it makes little sense to have two small categories for Dallas and for Forth Worth since the twin-city conurbation is likely to attract the same set of editors. As has been pointed out, at a rough estimate, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000 times before, having "City stubs" categories and the like is an extraordinarily bad idea. As, in general, is the idea of trying to in any way create stub categories to represent an identical hierarchy to the permcats. They don't perform the same job, as my example above points out. Trying to shoehorn the same category structure on categories designed for readers and for editors simply will not work, and if attempted would pretty much stuff all the work which we've been doing in stub sorting for the last few years. I'm not saying I'm against this in any way, but I will say that it is one of the least sensible ideas I've heard regarding stub sorting, and if anyone tries to make such categories I will speedily delete them out of hand, and I don't care if I get banned for doing so. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• ok, ok, hang on. I basically agree with everything that you've said above. Either i'm not being clear in what I am saying, or it's being misinterpreted. In instances where the categories are already established, and an actual need for a stubs subcategory exists under the current guidelines, I see no reason that stub categories should form their own separate tree. Your example is an extreme instance, and I highly doubt that such an occurance would come up. I find myself thinking that your attitue(s) are becoming entrenched in a "shout down the new guy" mentality. If you do not wish to consider changes to the system regardless of opinions, please let me know now so I don't waste my time. Thanks. --Ohms law 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to say I think you're not being clear in what you're saying, or at least, Grutness and I are both having similar interpretation difficulties. We're not creating separate trees, as I've tried to explain. If you agree with Grutness, and aren't suggesting changing the existing guidelines, I don't see why you feel you're the victim of "entrenched attitudes". As I, after repeated attempts, don't understand what you wish to change (or not change? not even that's clear, to be honest), I think you're more of a vuctim of "total confusion". Alai 10:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is going OT to what began this section, so I will reply on the talk page. In regards to this topic, I would supoprt an sfd for Cat:Fort Worth stubs. --Ohms law 11:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

{{England-bio-stub}} is over 5 pages, {{UK-musician-stub}} is getting there (almost 4 and a half), and of course musician stubs are still oversized. Plenty of these out there. Crystallina 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've been politely ignoring the England-bios, as that road lies madness: one could simply re-sort 90% of the UKs into this, and gain... well, what, in the process? (Yeah, I know, this coming from the person who moved 700 Calvados-geo-stubs to "fix" the 800ish Lower Normandy type...) Was this ever actually proposed, or did we just "fall heir" to it? I suppose we're stuck with it now though, so I'll support this, on the basis of the above necessity. Alai 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure, but all of a sudden there are 5 pages of them. I'm not a big fan of it either, but it's rather established now. Crystallina 20:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 sports club stub

There are quite a few articles on rowing clubs. About a dozen or so on Oxford and Cambridge college boat clubs alone, and all of them are stubs, although not many are named as such. They currently use the 'sports-related article stub' which is quite vague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Spith (talk • contribs).

• Are there 60 overall? One way or another, I'd think a Cat:Sports club stubs would be a good idea. Alai 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • a sports clubs stub category sounds good to me. --Ohms law 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

• {{Arizona-school-stub}} / Cat:Arizona school stubs 64
• {{Missouri-school-stub}} / Cat:Missouri school stubs 59
• {{Colorado-school-stub}} / Cat:Colorado school stubs 56
• {{Nebraska-school-stub}} / Cat:Nebraska school stubs 50
• {{Alabama-school-stub}} / Cat:Alabama school stubs 48
• {{Utah-school-stub}} / Cat:Utah school stubs 48
• {{Iowa-school-stub}} / Cat:Iowa school stubs 45

I suggest we create full-fledged categories for the first three, and keep an eye on the remainder. Alai 05:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I concur. NauticaShades 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

These are oversized again; largest countries within seem to be Portugal (46) and Greece (43), with no appeciable undercatting. Alai 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

Further to Aai's propsal below I believe that Both Sweden and Spain have also passed the 60 mark and so I would like to propose Cat:Sweden athletics biography stubs and Cat:Spain athletics biography stubs templates already exist for both of these.

• Now that you mention it, on double-stubbing (or double-upmerged-stubbing, to be more accurate), Poland is at 55, and Finland 48, they may worth a punt, too, or getting very close. Alai 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Having been through these again Italy-75, Sweden-70, Spain-63, Poland-61 should be created the next largest are Ukraine-52, Finland-49, Hungary-47 and Romania-43 all have there own templates already and Bulgaria-39, Belarus-37 and Netherlands-34.PS Apologies for not signing my original proposal. Waacstats 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

Olympics stubs are oversized again: nothing guaranteed to be over threshold, but for these I can certainly find at least 51. Alai 04:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

• Cat:United States bishop stubs 97
• Cat:United Kingdom bishop stubs 68

or:

• Cat:Anglican bishop stubs 77

Bishops are at four pages, above based just on double-stubbing. Alai 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support all three.--Carabinieri 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 modified by Alai

Many of the articles about Long Island Rail Road stations in Category:Long Island Rail Road stations (of which there are 44) are stubs, and I think they should be classified as Long Island Rail Road station stubs to be more specific and to aid WikiProject Trains and WikiProject Stations. I've taken the liberty of creating the category and its associated stub template (Category:Long Island Rail Road station stubs and Template:LIRR-station-stub respectively) but I didn't associate them with any higher up stub classifications. It should probably be a subcategory of Category:United States train station stubs. -- Robert 06:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm not at all convinced that this is a good move - with other countries we've started splitting station stubs by location, not by specific line (thus a NewYork-railstation-stub would be the obvious way to split US railstation-stubs). And if there are only 44 station articles in total, it seems extremely unlikely from the viewpoint of logic that 60 of them will be stubs. And I'm certainly not convinced that "make the template first then propose it later" is a good way to go. All in all, this could have been handled better if you'd come here first. Grutness...wha? 06:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment But on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Proposing new stubs - procedure page it says "Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case," and these are part of a WikiProject, WikiProject Stations. Also, sorry for creating the template first; I had no idea of the existance of this page until I'd already created it and was looking into how to add it to a stub category. --Robert 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The stub type associated with the wikiproject would be Cat:United States train station stubs; the "associated with a wikiproject" clause isn't intended to be read as meaning any stub type which is in some sense associated with a wikiproject -- which would be all of them. Perhaps the wording on this could stand to be more clear: WP:STUB, for example, says "This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.)" Alai 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On the whole I feel much as does Grutness. I'd have no objections to a {{LIRR-station-stub}} upmerged to a Cat:New York rail station stubs, but this is a little too "bottom up", and a little too small, for my liking. Alai 06:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked, the said {{NewYork-railstation-stub}} type would take 145 stubs, so I'm going to officially propose that. Also, above I should have said that the WPJ's "designated stub type" should be {{railstation-stub}} / Cat:train station stubs... except that doesn't exist either, so I'm proposing that too. Alai 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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, upmerge cat

Category:Belgium stubs Could be further split up and reorganised: the current scheme is

• {{Belgium-stub}}
  • {{Belgium-geo-stub}}
  • {{Belgium-bio-stub}}
    • {{Belgium-footybio-stub}}
    • {{Belgium-politician-stub}}
  • {{Belgium-sport-stub}} (currently on discovery)
    • {{Belgium-footyclub-stub}}
  • Belgian culture
    • Belgian music
      • {{Belgium-band-stub}}
    • {{FrancoBelgian-comics-stub}}
      • {{Tintin-stub}}

I would love some input from the experts here. I think a music stub will already sort out most of the articles, although I'm not sure if this needs to be split up further in artists, songs, etc.

Other stub categories I think of relate to media, politics (broader then just politicians), companies, history...

So I suggest:

• {{Belgium-music-stub}} and Category:Belgian music stubs
• {{Belgium-media-stub}} and Category:Belgian media stubs
• {{Belgium-politics-stub}} and Category:Belgian politics stubs
• {{Belgium-company-stub}} and Category:Belgian company stubs
• {{Belgium-history-stub}} and Category:Belgian history stubs

Comments, please!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Aren't these possibly a little over-engineered, given that theres only just over 200 stubs in the parent category? But their scopes certainly make sense in theory; perhaps just create them as upmerged templates, feeding into said parent, until the need and viability is rather more clear-cut? (Ideally 60+ in each case.) Alai 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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

If I may quote myself from the RC-WPJ page, 'Also, what about a Cat:Roman Catholic Church by country stubs type for the numberous "Church in Blahland" stub articles?' The name is a tad awkward, but numerically they're more than viable. Alai 09:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Both created on 27th March 2006. Template not used on any articles. Category only contains one subcategory (Category:Linux stubs). The category might be worthwhile as a container for all the free software stub categories (Linux stubs, KDE stubs, GNOME stubss) but I'm not sure how useful the template would be. --TheParanoidOne 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, sorting by license type is completely unhelpful for stub sorting. --TheParanoidOne 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

not much id think - and none at all with a gap in the name. wouldnt it make more sense to split software by what it does than by whether its free? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --TheParanoidOne 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This one should have growth potential, but it is still only used on a mere three article. SFD? Valentinian ^(talk) 12:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This could easily be populated from the corresponding permie, as I noted at /P, the question is whether it should be. I don't personally think it's an ideal axis, but given the size of the parent, I wouldn't rule it out entirely, either. Alai 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets see here, it starts a new axis for splitting the software stubs, and despite being populatable, no one cares enough to do so? Send it to SFD. At worst, we'll find someone who cares enough about the type to populate it. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The no-one-cares argument is, as I say, misplaced, since it's an "unofficial" type (hence it being here), and proposing it produces objections (though not unusually, little in the way of concrete counter-proposals). If we're going to send such signals not to populate a type, we shouldn't then complain that it's not being populated. But in theory SFD could produce some clarity and/or activity, yes. Alai 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Both created in March 2006. Used on <20 stubs, most of which are software stubs. I'm not sure whether splits by company (software or otherwise) is a good idea. --TheParanoidOne 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

In parallel to the discussions on /P about the merits of some such stub, one's been created. Current scope is apparently ice hockey arenas, which is misleadingly narrow. Should be either renamed, or rescoped, I'd think. Alai 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

i thought the discussion decided that it wasnt a good idea to have a seperate arena-stub. id redirect to stadium-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (unsigned nomination)

I was as well. Delete this redundant stub. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the creator and the apparent intent, I doubt there's any relationship between the two, hence "in parallel". Alai 06:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Whichever it is, I still don't think it's particularly useful. Perhaps redirecting to stadium-stub until that discussion's reached some form of concluson would make sense? Grutness...wha? 07:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete this, please. If it's arenas in general, it's parallel and pretty pointless. If it's just ice hockey arenas, the category gets really difficult to use in the case of multi-use arenas. --fuzzy510 02:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 sfd supernatural and cryptozoology

There's a small menagerie of embryonic stub types at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal. I've suggested they might simply use one stub type, scoped for their whole project. Alai 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

there are eight listed there but two of them have been used for a long time - para-stub and myth-stub. theres also occult-stub which they havent listed. between the three of them they should cover just about everything. The monster-stub and cryptozoology-stub look identical to me and cross discussions about an animal-myth-stub at WP:WSS/P. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd missed para-stub: rather defeats my suggestion of a new type, if there's already that one. I suggest we give them a little while to mull it over, and then start bashing stuff together. Alai 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

I can't recall seeing a proposal for this one. A bit oddly formed and only used on 12 articles. Viable? Valentinian ^(talk) 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

May be worth sorting through {{Asia-myth-stub}}, since that's where I dumped the Persian myths later used in Zoroastrianism during the {{myth-stub}} split. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Too small and badly named. The work of WikiProject Oklahoma. Anyway, the template should be renamed. OU also means - e.g. Odense University and there's probably also an Oregon Uni etc. somewhere. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Considering that I am of the minority opinion that USC is the University of South Carolina, university stubs that go by just the initials should be verbotten. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  Nur ein 'T', bitte. Aber Sie haben ganz recht. (one T is enough, and I agree completely.)  :) Valentinian ^(talk) 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• As a graduate of OU (that is, Otago University), I should perhaps point out that the world's most famous OU is almost certainly Oxford University. And I agree with Caerwine... what USC stub??? And let's not even mention the "-reated"... SFD, anyone? Grutness...wha? 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• To SFD. We should be aiming to re-split these by (entire) state, if necessary (or if people insist), not by individual institution. Alai 01:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll second an SFD. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

41 articles about weird mythological creatures. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

dont we have something like {{legendary-creature-stub}} for them? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Created 27 June. Used on 7 articles. Youth wings are normally stubbed the same way as their mother parties, so I don't see its use. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Added to the stub type list today. I've pulled it from there until it's discussed... is there really any need for this one? Grutness...wha? 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a fair number of these, which were mainly being given model-stub as the closest available one. IIRC, I've proposed such a stub before, but had it rejected mainly because of lack of a suitable name. The stubs are there, altho now that we've started doing splits of model-stub on a per country basis, this second axis might prove troublesome. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Strangely enough 24 nuggets with this stub type, whien I would have thought it had 6, 9, or at most 20. Might be viable, but I doubt it, tho there are more than 60 articles in Cat:McDonald's (not including Cat:McDonald's High School All-Americans which I doubt would have articles for which this stub would be appropriate. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

I'm sure this is viable, and fairly sensibly scoped, but never proposed as far as I'm aware, not in the "urgent" category, and appearing "out of the blue" on WP:WSS/T, which gives every appearance of taking WSS for granted to new heights (though doubtless not intended as such). Alai 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just came here for this exact same stub type. The parent isn't oversized, but it's certainly not tiny, either. I'd say that the category should potentially be renamed to biography stubs instead of people stubs, but otherwise I think we should keep it. Even if we delete it to not have WSS taken for granted, we'll probably end up creating fairly soon down the line.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzy510 (talk • contribs).
• I had often wondered why there was a {{wrestling-bio-stub}}, but no {{wrestling-stub}} and a {{prowrestling-stub}}, but no {{prowrestling-bio-stub}}. I recommend we keep it and rename the cat to whatever biography/biographical/people naming convention is currently used. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

13 stubs between them, evidently per the tradition of "we're a wikiproject, why would we ever need to propose a stub type or follow the size guidelines?", Alai 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

if the NI geography stubs were to be split, it wouldn't be this way - it would be into the six counties, as with the other constituent parts of both the UK and the RoI. Which is another way of saying that this should be SFD'd, and preferably ASAP. Grutness...wha? 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the constituent parts would be the Cat:Districts of Northern Ireland, of which Belfast is one. There's a couple of schemes for possible "lumping", but I don't think any correspond to the counties-as-was. Alai 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

• {{Ossetia-stub}}
• {{Ossetia-geo-stub}}
• {{Ossetia-bio-stub}}
• {{Ossetia-politician-stub}}

SFD? Conscious 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They seems to have been created by a one man WikiProject (and the participant is actually a member here. Unfortunately, he didn't propose the templates first.) Everything looks very undersized at the moment. My hunch would say that the last two should go to SFD. Possibly the last three. The Alai solution is of course also a possibility, but in the case of the -politician I wouldn't know what to upmerge it to. Georgia has no template of its own, neither does the Caucasus. I've been hoping that the Caucasus nations would simply get its own national templates rather than going over a {{Caucasus-politician-stub}}. But I'm open to suggestions. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The North Ossetia is a part of Russia, the South Ossetia is (at least de jure) a part of Georgia. So the geo-, bio-, and politician- templates are hardly acceptable. Conscious 07:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a good idea to have this split for geo- bio- or politician-, since it crosses accepted national boundaries. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Used on one article. There's a wikiproject, and obviously many more "candidates", but stub-sorting by ethnicity seems a less than keen idea. (Wasn't some variant on this already deleted?) Alai 10:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the pdiscovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Let's see if anyone can work out who created this one... There have never been more than 15 Macau geo-stubs in all the time I've been counting geo-stubs, so this is both seriously undersized and likely to remain so for a considerable time. Alai has tidied ity a bit, and it is upmerged into the PRC geo-stub and Macau-stub categories (the latter of which is itself undersized). If anyone wants to argue this one, feel free - I'm still exhausted after previous attempts at instilling Instantnood with some normal stubbing guideline ideas a year ago. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I see no (further) problem with it as long as it doesn't start getting de-upmerged, wandering spelling or categories... Alai 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Since Oct 12. Fourteen entrants. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

This one has existed for almost half a year without anyone noticing. It is used on a mere 25 articles and - in case you haven't guessed it already - FSU means "Former Soviet Union". My first count said that three of these articles relate to the metro in Minsk (Belarus) and the rest to the metro in Moscow. I think this one was a bad idea. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ack. Badly named, badly scoped (we don't split on the former Soviet Union), badly ordered (we'd split Euro- first), and badly prioritized (the parent is not oversized, at less than 500 articles). Off to SFD with it. --CComMack (t•c) 10:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 list and feed into Cat:Munich stubs

Created by User:Agathoclea today; used on five articles. {{Berlin-U-Bahn-stub}} also exists.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

see also the comments under {{Paris metro stub}} above. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wass not aware of this process when creating the stub yesterday. Munich U-Bahn has enaugh stations to warrant the number and enaugh pictures on commons to make a few nice articles. It would be quite simple for me to put the stubs up. I noticed that the category might need to change to match the other stubs. Agathoclea 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it's probably best that this is left intact until we know how many articles that is and assess it again later. If there are a reasonable number of stubs (50 or so), then this will be worth keeping, but if there are still only a handful in a month or so, don't be surprised if this gets taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, will get those together easy. Just the matter of the category, would it make life easier for everybody, if for the moment the template would feed into the europan-rail stub category? Agathoclea 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point - yes, that would be a good option. In fact, it's standard practice with stub templates that are not yet at the size for stand-alone stub categories that they direct into a parent stub category until such time as they are well-populated. If there are 50 or so stubs with the template, there should be no problem with a separate stub category then. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that and then that's for today. Agathoclea 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it better fits in Category:Rapid transit stubs. Agathoclea 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not upmerge to a (German, though that's rather implied) U-Bahn/S-Bahn cat? We seem to have a number of these types, most of them undersized. The Berlins are fine as they are, and would become a subcat. Alai 21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'd add German(y) to the name - I'm not sure whether they use the same term in German speaking countries like Austria, but it's probably better to be on the safe side. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Still working on it. The list of stations is at User:Agathoclea/UBahn. Which category did you have in mind? Agathoclea 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Exceeded 50 and much more to go. Agathoclea 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 upmerge

AFAIK unproposed; rather small, otherwise sensible. Alai 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It does look rather unproposed. I've restubbed the lot since this template was also used on articles about scholars and on a few full-page articles. I'm certainly no expert on Danish literature, but I'm not exceedingly optimistic about this one. It is currently at 21 articles but somebody might want to through Cat:Danish people stubs. Btw, if anybody is game for counting stubs about Danish history, this number would probably be somewhat higher. On the positive side; the template is nicely formed. Upmerge unless it shows good growth. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

We may have approved this along with the other Aussie politician stub cats; the template was created in October. Was this supposed to be upmerged or have its own cat? Pegship 12:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is already here, see above. MER-C 13:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Created a few days ago. I don't remember a proposal and I'm not sure this is a good idea. If this one is kept, the category needs reformatting. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was never proposed. I don't like it very much either - what would go in here which wouldn't go better under other stub types? This may be SFD fodder. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. The lobbying category is pretty empty and some of these persons are also (former) politicians. Using a -politician-stub seems better to me. If the main topic is about somebody taking a bribe, then crime-bio-stub seems a better choice. We also have poli-stub hanging around.

I'm not sure either about the selection criteria used creating this list. In my country lobbying in the U.S. sense of the word is strongly disapproved of, and it is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when speaking about the Confederation of Danish Industries. Their primary function is to negotiate wages each year. Their "lobbying" could better be described as whining once or twice every year stating that all political parties are completely inadequate in solving anything important, so they are hardly a parallel to Mr. Butts. (TV-2 (band): Gather round and let's complain. That's what we do best ...) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

2 articles; < 60 in perm parent. Seems a tad narrow. Alai 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointless, too - these are both topography stubs, and that category is hardly overpopulated. SFD beckons... Grutness...wha? 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Not quite sure where to start on this one. Alai 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Previously deleted, recreation. Alai 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Created back in May and used on 40 articles. Non-standard scope and I'm pretty sure the image used is the picture of a secessionist leader. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

...in which case it's doubly inappropriate. Sigh. Yet more work at sfd, I suspect... Grutness...wha? 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

Curently only used on 3 articles, but could perhaps be useful. --Stemonitis 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This was actually already listed on the Proposals page and it was decided to send it to SFD. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

11 different stub templates relating to ghost towns, all violating the naming guidelines in various ways. The nine associated categories follow the naming guidelines at least for the most part. ({{Ghost town-bio stub}} feeds into Cat:Ghost town stubs and {{Asian-ghost town stub}} and {{African ghost town stub}} both feed into Cat:African ghost town stubs.) Only 7 actual stubs, all tagged with {{American-ghost town stub}}. I'm leaving a note on the associated proto-WikiProject. I intend to give them a week to find some more stubs, before sending the whole kit and caboodle to SFD for deletion of most of these, and at the very least, and renaming of the root stub to follow the naming guidelines, presumably to {{ghosttown-stub}} or {{ghosttown-geo-stub}}, assuming they can get it up to at least a minimal size. There are plenty of abandoned towns, so the possibility of them doing so seems reasonable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If even one is needed (which seems ridiculously unlikely IMHO), it should be marked with a US- in front of it, given that ghost towns exist in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a host of other places. Seems very highly unlikely that any of them are worthwhile, though. Grutness...wha? 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to WP:SFD

• This stub tag and category have been deleted once in the past, but is now used by nearly 70 articles, and is associated with a WikiProject. I still wonder, however, whether it is appropriate given {{cell-biology-stub}}. And the template's got an abhorrently long name with Too Many Capital Letters! --Stemonitis 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I notified the WikiProject and I'm going to put these up for SFD. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 rename and upmerge

Very small stub category ...holds less than 10 stubs. What would you guys like to do? Goldenrowley 02:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least some renaming is needed - perhaps upmerging to a larger Northern European myth stubs category or similar might be useful. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 send to SFD for renaming

Used on 31 articles and has an associated WikiProject. The template needs to be sent to SFD for renaming to conform to the naming guidelines and the category needs to be embedded into the stub hierarchy, presumably under Cat:Card game stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the pdiscovery 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 list on WP:STUBS

Created today, seven entrants. - crz crztalk 17:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

- energy stubs is rather full and some people may look for a distinction for renewable energy. Currently 70 entries (sorry but I was not fully aware of the rules) Inwind 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• You beat me to it with bringing this here... looks fairly well formed and certainly populated enough now - as long as any wind farms are double stubbed with their locations (which they seem to be), I don't see too many problems with it. Inwind's right about the size of Cat:Energy stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 more of these are at SFD now

Only 1 stub. Monni 20:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not just Taiwan. Take a look at the main record label stubs category - someone's gotten a bit stub-happy. If it were me I'd take the lot of them to SFD, at least the ones that have only three or four stubs. Looks like they've been listed. Never mind. Crystallina 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.