Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:WSS/P

WikiProject Stub sorting  v • d • e
Information
Project page	talk
- List of stub types	talk
- List of stub redirects	talk
- Naming guidelines
- To do	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Criteria (A)	talk
Proposals (A)	talk
Discoveries (A)	talk
Deletion (Log)	talk
Category

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read #Proposing new stubs - procedure beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also propose anything else related to stubs in #Other stub-related discussions.

Contents 1 Proposing new stubs - procedure 2 Proposals, December 2006 2.1 NEW PROPOSALS 2.2 Cat:Portugese sports venue stubs 2.3 Cat:Architectural history stubs 2.4 Cat:Italian nobility stubs 2.5 Cat:Zhejiang geography stubs 2.6 Cat:Lake Macquarie geography stubs 2.7 Cat:Lunar geological feature stubs or Cat:Lunar crater stubs 2.8 Amusement park stubs 2.9 {{Marsu-stub}} | Category:Marsupial stubs 2.10 1970 and prior MLB pitchers 2.11 {{US-gov-bio-stub}} 2.12 Another NZ-geo subcat 2.13 Record label stubs by country 2.14 New Films By Country stub needed in (2.2.5.3 By Country): {{South-Africa-film-stub}} (South African Films) 2.15 Energy stubs:Proposed United states naval reactors stub 2.16 Album Project:Proposed alt-country-album-stub 2.17 Cat:Tanzanian politician stubs 2.18 Cat:European rapid transit stubs 2.19 Asian American WikiProject stubs 2.20 Dutch actor stubs 2.21 New Mexico Broadcasting stubs 2.22 Major breakdown on Military personnel stubs 2.23 {{Sikh-bio-stub}}, Category:Sikh people stubs 3 Old business 3.1 {{Medal-stub}}, Category:Orders and medals stubs 3.2 various novel stubs 3.3 {{1900s-novel-stub}}, Category:1900s novel stubs 3.4 {{1910s-novel-stub}}, Category:1910s novel stubs 3.5 {{1920s-novel-stub}}, Category:1920s novel stubs 3.6 {{Insectivora-stub}}, Category:Insectivore stubs 3.7 {{terrorist-stub}} → Category:Terrorist stubs, {{terrorism-stub}} / {{terrorism-org-stub}} → Category:Terrorism stubs 3.8 {{sport-event-stub}} / Cat:Sports event stubs 3.9 {{Africa-artist-stub}}/Cat:African artist stubs 3.10 {{US-rail-bridge-struct-stub}} 3.11 Cat:Wellington Region geography stubs 3.12 Cat:film festival stubs 3.13 New football bios 4 Proposals, November 2006 4.1 {{London-road-stub}} 4.2 Television episode subcats 4.3 Television character subcats 4.4 Poetry subtypes 4.5 Cat:Dominican Republic baseball pitcher stubs 4.6 Geography related stub template 4.7 {{punctuation-stub}} 4.8 Bank stubs 4.9 Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs 4.10 {{Fort-Worth-stub}} 4.11 {{England-musician-stub}} 4.12 Boat Club Stubs 4.13 Upmerged US school templates at or near threshold 4.14 Cat:European sports venue stubs update 4.15 Further split of Euro-athletics-bio-stubs 4.16 Cat:1968 Summer Olympics stubs 4.17 Bishop subcats 4.18 Long Island Rail Road station stubs 4.19 Belgium stub splitting 4.20 {{RC-stub}} revisited... 5 Other stub-related discussions 6 Nazi stubs 7 Poet stubs

[edit] Proposing new stubs - procedure

	Proposing new stubs
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure: Check at Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist. List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~). Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or notability of the topic Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be: currently be marked with stub; currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one); a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable; not marked as a stub. Others will do the same, if they feel like it. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. ↑ . 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.

[edit] Proposals, December 2006

If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the December archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.

[edit] NEW PROPOSALS

[edit] Cat:Portugese sports venue stubs

As is to prove that you really can't keep a good stub type down, the euro-sports-venues are oversized again. Pending a fresh db dump, best I can come up with is this. OTOH, if said dump reveals some other country has leapt ahead, I shall in fickle fashion switch my attentions to that... Alai 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Was already proposed and aproved along with Greece-sports-venue-stub and is listed at WP:WSS/T.--Carabinieri 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Architectural history stubs

The arch-stubs are now oversized, and of the several top-level subcats (and subtrees thereof) that appear to pass threshold, this looks the most potentially coherent (and has 90 candidates). (Probably would need to be squinted at by hand, all the same.) Alai 01:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Italian nobility stubs

After those last two damp squibs, I'm happy to report this one seems super-viable at 109. (There's almost as many under-sorted French.) Parent is oversized. Alai 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Zhejiang geography stubs

The "Mainland China" geos are bang on 800, and about to be slightly oversized when they become the PRC-geos. Largest first-level division remaining seems to be this, at 46, but there's also some undercategorisation. Alai 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - China's probably close to being looked at for a serious by-province split (which will also entail tidying up what is meant by Tibet, BTW). Support. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Serious, as opposed to...? Alai 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, considering making all provincial templates and upmerging whatever needs to be, rather than doing this one region at a time. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, that latter'd be "all the ones I haven't proposed" -- never mind how borderline this one is. (Much as I slack off on actual creations, I try to report all viable splits when making proposals of this sort.) Templatising would certainly be fine by me, or if anyone wants to tackle the uncatting, I can furnish a list of those lacking a provincial-level permcat, which might put some others "over the top". Alai 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - just this one will do for now then, though I suspect we should keep a close eye on it for further splits. Does province sound the most sensible method of doing that as and when? And if so how many are we looking at? Grutness...wha? 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we'll know about it soon enough, as it'll doubtless be oversized again presently. There's 33 first-level entities total, and 22 provinces qua provinces. If there's any more broadly-defined "regions" (aside from purely historical or very hand-wavey ones), I don't know about them (to be fair, provinces are already pretty big places in the scheme of things.) I suppose one could look at lumping the SARs into one category, the first-order municipalities into another, and the autonomous regions into a third, but that seems a little weak. Alai 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Lake Macquarie geography stubs

The NSW geos are oversized yet again, this is the best I can come up with, at a disgracefully small 38, and it's not clear that there's much in the way of undercatting. (Well, if I want to get a rise out of Grutness, I could propose Cat:New South Wales river stubs, but that's hardly any larger at 40.) However, there's LM WPJ: I know, because they've left their category in the main category tree, rather untidily. That could conceivably give us the excuse, though their actual scope would be a little wider than this. Alai 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrmph. Sure there isn't some undersorting of the Sydney ones? NSW's tricky - it seems to be divided into a couple of hundred shires, with nothing between that and the state level. Don't really like the idea of this split, but I can't think of any real alternative... Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's much unsorting (or uncatting) to that or any other existing type, it wasn't evident when I crunched the numbers. There's bound to be some, of course. Alai 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I did find this page on the official New South Wales website that divides NSW up into 14 regions. How much use they see, I don't know, but Lake Macquarie City would be in the Hunter region which also consists of Cessnock City, Dungog Shire, Gloucester Shire, Great Lakes, Maitland City, Muswellbrook Shire, Newcastle City, Port Stephens, Singleton Shire, and Upper Hunter Shire. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Works for me! Alai 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Me too. Question now is, though - what do we do with the alrwady made Wyong-geo-stub? Grutness...wha? 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Make it a subcat, or if it remains too itsy, upmerge it. Alai 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Lunar geological feature stubs or Cat:Lunar crater stubs

Either of these would have over 600 stubs, with a tiny difference in membership (so one or the other, not both); the parent is, rather suddenly, over 1100. (Many of these are probably just undercategorised, so I'd personally favour the craters type, lest we end up simply moving almost all of these from this type to a new one.) Alai 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I'd go for the geographical features (more technically selenographic, but I don't think many people really use that term these days). I think that beyond earth is one place we can split more readily by type of feature, so if this gets too big cuting the craters out as a separate subcat may be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, the permcat doesn't use that term. My concern about the more inclusive type is that once categorisation is complete, they'd probably be almost all those. Come to that, it may not be far off being true for the craters, either, but one can at least hope... Alai 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amusement park stubs

On WP:NPP patrol I ran across Action City. In Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Leisure could only find {{Ride-stub}}. Oddly and unexpectedly, this stub generates " This article about an amusement park, amusement ride, or roller coaster is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The stub should programmed for rides and parks should be separate. Several unstubbed articles exist in Category:Amusement parks. TonyTheTiger 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem all that odd or unexpected to me, but a split seems plausible, and probably of benefit as the "merged" type is getting to be about 2 1/2 listings pages. In the (I'm betting not unlikely) event that this gets approved, and not populated, worth an upmerged {{amusement-park-stub}} template at the least. Alai 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as long as the usual caveat about double-stubbing with the local geo-stub applies. Grutness...wha? 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Marsu-stub}} | Category:Marsupial stubs

In the first 50 mammal stubs, 14 are about marsupials. I think they should get their own stub template/category. Eli Falk 08:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You need 60 in total at least... Monni 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I only checked the first 50 stubs out of approx. 400. Even if that is relatively high, I think that there's got to be more than 60.

In addition, the mammal stubs category and its sub-categories keep getting fuller. In July, when I proposed Category:Carnivora stubs and Category:Even-toed Ungulate stubs, there were approx. 700 articles in the mammal stub category. Now there are 971 articles in the mammal stub category and it's newer sub-categories, so even if there's just under 60 now, there will probably be 60 soon. Eli Falk 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what's wrong with {{marsupial-stub}}? It's not all that long and certainly much clearer than marsu (which, as you'll note, doesn't exist). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, but strongly agree with Amalas's point about the template name. Clarity is worth the four extra characters... Alai 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but marsu is Finnish for guinea pig! Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support template as per Amalas. Monni 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whee - that was quick - whatever happened to waiting five days? Grutness...wha? 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I support such action, but now that it was done early there are 147 articles in that category, which proves me right about that there is enough. Eli Falk 10:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1970 and prior MLB pitchers

I've been working on stub sorting {{Baseball-pitcher-stub}} into the 1980's , 1990's, and 2000's buckets, and it occurred to me that we probably should have a "1970 and before" stub as well. Otherwise, the stub sorters will be checking the same pitchers over and over and over to see if they belong in the three existing sub-stubs. Kathy A. 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not how we've done similar type splits in the past, and it will mean that when it's time to add {{1970s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}, we'll need to restub all of the semi-sorted stubs into the new 1970s stub and a 1960s and before stubs. I could see adding addition templates that would feed into Cat:Baseball pitcher stubs until there are enough for their own separate category, but not a temporary semi-sorted category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the right axis, but if it's the "right now" axis, and will get it off the long-standing-oversized list... For the reasons CW mentions, ideally create per-decade templates, even if they feed into the same "bucket". Alai 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. My editing experience is intermediate, and I hadn't previously run across the idea of creating multiple templates that feed into the same stub. If someone could direct me to where I can learn how to do that, I'd be happy to work on the project. It would help me feel like I'm not spinning my wheels in the pitcher stubs, and make life much, much easier for when new stubs are created. Kathy A. 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, a "central resource" on this would be sensible, and doesn't really exist. I might try to do some off-line redrafting of parts of WP:STUB while I'm digesting my Christmas pud... But in this case, basically just make multiple copies of {{1980s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}, changing the occurrences of "1980s" as appropriate, but giving them all the same category; say, [[Category:Pre-1980 baseball pitcher stubs]] (or whatever there's a consensus for this to be called). (It's I think a good idea to top-sort the templates for upmerged types, so that it's immediately apparent from looking at the beginning of the category which exist, but this code already does that.) If you run into any difficulties, just contact me, I'll be happy to help, or likewise any of the "usual suspects" for stub template creation, for whom I'm sure the same is true. Alai 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks! I think I've got it done now. (I'd welcome anyone to look it over and double check.)Kathy A. 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's it, though I think the lengthy list of templates on the category page is a bit redundant, given the aforementioned top-sorting of the templates themselves, and takes up a lot of space (leading to the dreaded "where did the articles go?" syndrome). Personally I'd remove that, and just make reference to their general form and range. Alai 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{US-gov-bio-stub}}

This would be in parallel to the existing {{UK-gov-bio-stub}}. It should easily reach 60 and should take about one third to one half of the stubs I'm having to leave in Cat:American people stubs for now as I sort through them. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This doesn't exist yet? Strong support. Crystallina 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• If you're sorting the US-bios, I'll just say strong support and have the good grace not to mention the delicate "category name" issue (oops!). Alai 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I realize there's already a UK version of this but wouldn't this be the same thing as {{US-poli-bio-stub}} minus the political scientists.--Carabinieri 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a point, there's something of an asymmetry between the two. I don't think the scopes are the same, though; this would cover supposedly-non-political officials, while the other covers non-office-holders connected with politics. I suppose a difference between the UK and the US is that in the latter, a much larger number of officials are explicitly political... Alai 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I've been using {{US-poli-bio-stub}} for spouses, siblings, parents, children, and other relatives of U.S. politicians who are notable primarily because of their relative. I suppose I could have sorted Billy Carter with {{US-business-bio-stub}} and {{beer-stub}} instead of {{US-poli-bio-stub}}, but it just didn't seem right. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another NZ-geo subcat

No sooner has Cat:Wellington Region geography stubs been created than the Manawatu-Wanganui Region manages to scrape to 60 stubs. Therefoire, I propose that the {{ManawatuWanganui-geo-stub}} template be assigned its very own Cat:Manawatu-Wanganui geography stubs. And before you ask, no the permcat doesn't have "Region" on the end - the only reason Wellington does is to differentiate it from the city. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - three other regions (Marlborough, Bay of Plenty, and Northland) have between 40 and 50 geo-stubs, so it may not be too long before they also reach a reasonable splitting level, especially since I'm still hunting through the NZ geo permcats. Grutness...wha? 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record label stubs by country

OK, seems I've jumped the gun on this one already. I wasn't even aware that this needed a discussion, as believed stubs were the same as categories. Apologies for this... Anyway, I've already added some new stub categories in the record labels stubs [2] category.
Originally this had 3 stubs - UK, USA and Canada. Everything else went into the big melting pot of just being a record-label-stub, regardless of country. I started to create new stub cats. for other countries, as and when I found a record label stub from that country. Some are more populated that others (compare France, Germany and Australia with Cuba, Iceland and Poland, for example).
I think having the stubs broken down for this category at country level will help to improve and expand the articles within each category. For example, a keen Wikipedian from Iceland would be more likely to stumble across an Iceland specific record label stub, than finding the article buried in the general record-label-stub.
Obviously as time goes on, some of the underpopulated stub categories will gain entries too. Again, apologies for not knowing about something I didn't know about in the first place! Lugnuts 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• oppose any that don't currently have 50 stubs, support any that do. There are already plans underway for continent-wide splits, which would keep the size of the categories to far more reasonable levels. See also WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• upmerge to continent level unless viable on own... Monni 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Films By Country stub needed in (2.2.5.3 By Country): {{South-Africa-film-stub}} (South African Films)

Several feature films from South Africa needs a home. Faith Like Potatoes, Tsotsi, etc. Lohanj 08:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• That would be {{SouthAfrica-film-stub}}, not {{South-Africa-film-stub}}, if needed, which largely depends on what you mean by "several". How many films are we talking here? If there aren't enough, perhaps a continent-wide {{Africa-film-stub}} would be a reasonable interim measure. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support {{Africa-film-stub}} for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Cool. Will use {{Africa-film-stub}} for now. Lohanj 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good - that will reduce some of the, um, constant gardening we have to do of the main film category! :) Grutness...wha? 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy stubs:Proposed United states naval reactors stub

in the energy stubs there is a group of 26 nuclear reactors which could be moved into a seperate category Inwind 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Too small for a stub type, but a {{nuclear-energy-stub}} → Cat:Nuclear energy stubs → Cat:Nuclear energy → (Cat:Nuclear technology & Cat:Energy) should be viable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer using power instead of energy {{nuclear-power-stub}} → Cat:Nuclear power stubs → Cat:Nuclear power → (Cat:Nuclear technology & Cat:Energy) Inwind 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I see we're db-authoring stuff before the discussion period's even finished. I've sped the first cat, and agree that the permcat-consistent alternative is preferable, but I suggest keeping the {{nuclear-energy-stub}} redirect for reasons of symmetry with the parent's template, and thus hopefully avoiding needless confusion and second-guessing. Alai 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album Project:Proposed alt-country-album-stub

It's awkward finding a home for the album stubs for groups such as Uncle Tupelo - not alt-rock. not country - I propose an alt-country-album-stub category. Candidates include:No Depression,Still Feel Gone,March 16-20, 1992,Anodyne (album),A.M. (album),Trace,Straightaways,Wide Swing Tremolo,Blue Mountain,Dog Days (Blue Mountain album),Home Grown (album),Tales of a Traveler (album),Roots (Blue Mountain album),Tonight It's Now or Never (album),Soft Spot,Sound of Lies,Bitter Honey,Waltz Across America,Fear and Whiskey,The Ghost of Fashion,You Were a Diamond - search alt country album stub for more candidates (I'd est. about 100)Daddylight 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds potentionally sensible, but as far as I can see there's no corresponding permcat. But as there's other alt-country sorts of categories, I don't see any particular reason for not creating one... Alai 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Tanzanian politician stubs

Feel free to criticize me, but I was a little bold today. The Tanzanian politicians were a mess, and during cleanup I suddenly realized that 80+ articles were using this template. Since it was simply upmerged due to size, I've taken the liberty of creating a proper category right away. The -bio category has 53 articles left in it and the material looks like it is growing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:European rapid transit stubs

Given the discussion at SFD, I think perhaps it might be a good idea to create this as a container, with upmerged -metro-stub templates on a per-country basis. I'd also not be against the idea of finer categories corresponding to UN sub-regions, if those manage to pass threshold, where the countries don't. Alai 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian American WikiProject stubs

I'm in Wikipedia:WikiProjectAsianAmericans and would like some suggestions as to a stub template. I'm not sure that a stub template will do it all, but either way, it should be possible. Possibly {{Asian-American-stub}} or {{AsianAmerican-stub}}. Approval? Wait... that was a stub template. Never mind.

• But as you mention it... This has the same problems as previously-discussed types. If this is for "people and matters notable in connection with Asian American affairs", it's OK, as long as that's clear, and is stuck to. If it's for "sorting people by ethnicity who are notable for assorted things unrelated to their ethnicity", that's a problem. What you may ultimately want is a talk-page template, which you're free to scope as you wish (accordining to primary notability or otherwise). Alai 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch actor stubs

[edit] New Mexico Broadcasting stubs

The New Category for all the Television Networks in New Mexico at over 20 to 50. Currently There's No New Mexico Stations to attached the Network & Independent Stations for the reason, I'm proposing {{CBS New Mexico}}, {{NBC New Mexico}}, {{ABC New Mexico}}, {{PBS New Mexico}}, {{FOX New Mexico}}, {{CW New Mexico}}, {{MyNetworkTV New Mexico}}, {{Univision New Mexico}}, {{Telefutura New Mexico}}, {{Telemundo New Mexico}} and {{Other TV Stations in New Mexico}}.--BenH 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's 20-50 in the category, that's not even really enough for one stub template, let alone 11! But these don't look like stub templates at all - are you sure that's what you really want, or do you just want navigation templates? Grutness...wha? 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're proposing stub articles (CBS New Mexico, NBC New Mexico, ABC New Mexico, PBS New Mexico, FOX New Mexico, CW New Mexico, MyNetworkTV New Mexico, Univision New Mexico, Telefutura New Mexico, Telemundo New Mexico...), just go ahead and create them. OTOH, there are several local network affiliates articles already -- KASY-TV, KENW, etc -- so perhaps you just need redirects, or a "list of television stations by network" page? Alai 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major breakdown on Military personnel stubs

This category is definitely undersorted, however, it is near 800. Currently, no continents have their individual stubs and for this reason, I am proposing {{Africa-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Euro-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Asia-mil-bio-stub}}, {{NorthAm-mil-bio-stub}}, {{SouthAm-mil-bio-stub}} and their corresponding categories.--Thomas.macmillan 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unsorted, and uncategorised too; only 322 are in a "by nationality" category. (One of these days I'm going to create and populate a "people without a nationality category" maint-cat, and it'll be a doozy...) So pending that, your plan seems a good one. Alai 03:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Don't forget {{Oceania-mil-bio-stub}}, even if only as an upmerged template! :) Grutness...wha? 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And NorhtAm-mil-bio-stub might not be a great idea, since the US and Canada each already have their own mil-bio-stubs.--Carabinieri 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think, if we include the Caribbean and Central America in it, it can be useful. Perhaps we can just upmerge it at first.--Thomas.macmillan 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is kind of related to this subject. I recently just went through and created pages for most of the Army and Air Force Korean War Medal of Honor recipients (Navy and Marines had already been done), and I've noticed that under "United States military personnel stubs" there is a "United States Air Force personnel stubs", "United States Coast Guard personnel stubs" and "United States Navy personnel stubs". The Army folks are all categorized under the parent stub, and I think it might be better 'categorization' to to break them out under their own stub, "Cat:United States Army personnel stubs".wbfergus 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • A bit late but while looking through some of the archives it appears that Euro- and Asia- have already been approved (Archive 26 if anyone is interested) so can probably be speedied. Waacstats 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • WB, actually that's already been proposed, here; I've just been goldbricking on actually doing it, as it's slipped off the "oversized and urgent" list. (There was also some discussion on how many subcats, and what they should be called.) So feel free to go ahead... Alai 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, I've created a category Cat:United States Army personnel stubs and a template {{US-army-bio-stub}}. Hopefully I created them correctly. I've also gone through the 76 Army Medal of Honor recipients for the Korean War and added the template to them. wbfergus 11:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Sikh-bio-stub}}, Category:Sikh people stubs

Most other major religions have stubcats for their religious figures and also the Sikhbiocat has at least 80-90 automatic stubs (from Category:Sikhism stubs that can be filled.Bakaman 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support template, for the sake of symmetry, but the "parent" is less than a page, so a split is completely unnecessary, and would leave same pretty small. Suggest upmerger. Alai 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not getting what youre saying? Could you simplify the stuff you said above? Are you saying I should create the template and redirect to the parent cat?Bakaman 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Alai 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies - I counted about 70 bio stubs, the other 80 or are general stubs. I think the cats should be separate if only because Category:Sikh politicians, Category:Sikh warriors, etc. are more fit to be categorized under Sikh religious figures and the bio stubs cat is about as big (if not bigger) than the Sikhism scripture, theology, practice, etc.Bakaman 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just the thing: if there's 80-90 bio-stubs, that leaves 50-60 in the parent; it may not be undersized as such, but it seems a bit premature to be creating a two-way split of a category that's not even in danger of reaching a page yet. (Having said that, I'm not opposed as such, if the Sikh editors would prefer that organisation.) Alai 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Update - I changes cat title to "Sikh people stubs", for consistencyBakaman 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Support and comment This would create a major category for stub items that can be brought to attention of specialist in this subject. Many editors engaged in Sikhism only deal with bio-type articles - so yes, I support this proposal. However, don't ask me, someone will have to allocate this to the stubbed items as I am not very active on Wikipedia at present.--Hari Singh 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hari singh was the only active Sikh (I'm a Hindu myself) member of WP:SIKH I could ask to comment. Like he said and my experience shows, a large number of articles would be able to be organized this way. Since Alai has said he isnt opposed to the creation either, I think I will create and organize the stubcat/template and also work on filling the parent cat as well.Bakaman 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old business

[edit] {{Medal-stub}}, Category:Orders and medals stubs

Wikipedia's coverage of national Orders, decorations, and medals is distinctly patchy. Apart from the most famous awards, most articles are stubs. Just to take two categories at random, Category:Canadian orders and decorations and Category:Orders and decorations of Australia contain few, if any, reasonably-sized articles. A Wikiproject is just about to be started to try and remedy this gap in coverage, so it would be a good idea for it to have its own stub category.

Xdamr^talk 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• We already have an {{award-stub}}. Were you thinking of splitting that? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, {{award-stub}} covers everything from academic prizes to sporting prizes, medals for humanitarianism to medals for broadcasting - with goodness knows what else in between! This stub would be solely for orders and medals, civil or military, which are part of national honours systems.

Xdamr^talk 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea but not the names. the category should be Category:Order and decoration stubs to match the non-stub parent Category:Orders and decorations, and when I see {{medal-stub}}, the first thing that comes to mind for me is Olympic and other sporting medals, not national honors. Perhaps {{order-stub}} would do? Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the difficulty with {{medal-stub}}. As far as a new name goes, {{order-stub}} sounds good. {{odm-stub}} is another alternative that springs to mind (ODM = Orders, decorations, and medals) but does it sound too cryptic? Perhaps call the stub category Category:Order, decoration, and medal stubs to match it up. For some reason, dropping the plurals from the category name doesn't quite sound right - but if it conforms to established practice then we can do it that way.

Xdamr^talk 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely cryptic. What about separate {{mil-medal-stub}}/{{order-stub}}/{{decoration-stub}} templates and/or redirects, all feeding into the same category? Alai 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It doesn't really sound terribly more cryptic than something like {{Cvg-char-stub}} (computer and video game characters), surely?

Xdamr^talk 13:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think redirects would be best choice. I don't like initialisms much... Monni 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think three stubs is unnecessary duplication. As far as a single, unified name goes, I've tried to come up with a few new alternatives. The best I've been able to come up with is {{orders-medals-stub}}. How is this?

Xdamr^talk 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about three separate stub types, just covering all the obvious bases in terms of template names. But I'm OK with your latter suggestion, too. Alai 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

oppose new proposition Monni 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean?

Xdamr^talk 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer {{medal-stub}} as this would cover some of the exonumia that was dis-approved as a stub proposal last month. --JAYMEDINC 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, what does non-legal tender transaction tokens have to do with orders and decorations? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. But it does point out how medal by itself is just too ambiguous for medal-stub to be used as a template for this stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the exonumia article, medals are exonumia. All I was saying is that some types of medals that I would've included in the ill-fated exonumia stub would do just fine in the proposed medal stub. A better fit than in the {{coin-stub}} that was approved instead. I also appologize because I didn't come in here to debate the definition of exonumia and what fits in there. I just came to give my support for the proposed medal stub.--JAYMEDINC 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] various novel stubs

[edit] {{Insectivora-stub}}, Category:Insectivore stubs

[edit] {{terrorist-stub}} → Category:Terrorist stubs, {{terrorism-stub}} / {{terrorism-org-stub}} → Category:Terrorism stubs

[edit] {{sport-event-stub}} / Cat:Sports event stubs

[edit] {{Africa-artist-stub}}/Cat:African artist stubs

[edit] {{US-rail-bridge-struct-stub}}

[edit] Cat:Wellington Region geography stubs

[edit] Cat:film festival stubs

[edit] New football bios

[edit] Proposals, November 2006

If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to the November archive, add it to the list of stub types, and add it to the archive summary.

[edit] {{London-road-stub}}

Apropos of discussion at SFD, I did a quick tally of Cat:London geography stubs and found that - of the 550 stubs in that category - around 95 were streets, roads, squares and circuses (circi?). This would reduce the load on this stub cat and also reduce the need to split it into boroughs or similar. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Will this replace {{UK-road-stub}} on those pages or be additional? I would prefer it to be additional and if so, would Agree. Regan123 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would think that it would replace UK-road on those pages because London is more specific than UK. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem that may arise with that is that the roads are part of a national scheme, whereas the streets and squares etc are of a local perspective. I think these need to kept apart, so should this therefore become {{London-street-stub}}? Regan123 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I see. For roads that say, continue outside of London (like an interstate highway here in the US example), I could see both a UK-road and a London-road. However, for streets that are only located inside London, a simple London-road would suffice. (I hope I'm understanding you correctly). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I suggest we don't try to make a road/street distinction; it'd just get completely confusing. (I'm sure we still have numerous -street-stub redirects to -road-stubs from a previous sprees by SPUI and/or FoN.) Looking at the current London-stubs, I assume this would be primarily for the likes of Gillespie Road. Casting around for an example of a trunk road contained entirely in London, I notice that A1200 road isn't a London-stub at present, so I assume it's not really what the proposer had in mind. I don't much mind how these are scoped to make the distinction, but I'd be against double-stubbing with both parent and child, since that's ultimately to frustrate the size-management aspect of stub-sorting. (We're nowhere near having to split the UK-roads on size, but I wouldn't bet against it happening eventually.) OTOH, if we're doing this purely in reaction to Richmond-geo-stub, perhaps we should give it a miss for the time being. Alai 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK - a few points, since I proposed this:
  1. We don't make distinctions in stubbing between roads and streets anywhere else, so there's no point in doing it here, especially since the words "road" and "street" are pretty much interchangeable and actually have reversed meanings in some places (I live in a quiet suburban street that links to the centre of town by one of the city's main roads). Compare HongKong-road-stub and what it covers;
  2. London-road-stub would replace UK-road stub (and be a subcat of it) on those roads entirely in london - In exactly the same way as elsewhere and also exactly the same way as related stubs like geo-stub, both stubs would be applied if a road is both within and outside London. There's no reason why A1200 shouldn't be included, and my intention was certainly to cover such roads as well - if the North Circular was a stub, it could be marked with London-road-stub quite happily;
  3. this is partly in reaction to the Richmond thing, but I've been thinking it was a good idea for a while. This simply goaded me into action. And with just shy of 100 stubs, it's certainly a sensible split;
  4. Currently these roads are stubbed with London-geo-stub, which is incorrect in terms of how we use geo-stub elsewhere - as such, making a separate template and category for them will actually bring London-geo-stub in line with other geo-stubs;
  5. we may be nowhere near having to split the UK-road-stubs, but London-geo-stub is getting sizable, at 550 stubs - and since 17% of its contents are items which theoretically should be marked with a diferent stub type, I say let's make that stub type!
• Grutness...wha? 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 100 stubs argues to "viable", not necessarily "sensible". In fact, I really haven't seen any argument as to why splitting these by "form" is better than by more-specific-location -- especially as you're the person to argue the most vigorously against <place>-<landform>-stubs. That we already have a road-stub hierarchy, and (notoriously) many road-focused editors is granted, but in this case such "demand" as there is seems to be going the other way. It's further a bit of a stretch to assert that (say) Churchfield Road "should" be marked as anything other than a London-stub, since the "transport" aspect seems to be minimal, and the "part of London" considerable (as far as a six-sentence article goes). At any rate, I think we should get some Londonocentric input on this before getting too far ahead of ourselves. Alai 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • A road isn't a landform - which is why with every other geo-stub except London's, roads aren't included. I don't see why London lists them if the others don't. If you want to be technical about it, roads are a form of structure, and those are split by type as well as location (theat-struct, bridge-struct, church, stadium...). Grutness...wha? 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Remind me at what point I gave the impression that I thought roads were landforms; if "form", which I was not using interchangeably with "landform", is too similar, read as "type". I'm not sure I do want to be 'technical' about it, but roads are not in any especially useful sense 'structures', and are never that I recall either perm-categorised that way, nor stub-supercatted as such. OTOH, they generally are in "-geo-stub" hierarchies (the stub cats being rather more broadly drawn than the various "Geography of Foobar" cats, i.e. including all aspects of human geography, as well as the assorted landforms. And as I've pointed out, some of these articles are not merely articles-about-human-geography-by-way-of-road-transport, they're "neighbourhood" articles (and thus even moreso about human geography) with very little to do with transport, and would probably be more logically be split up (when split up they have to be) in much the same way that other -geo-stub categories of entities of comparable scale, i.e. by sub-region. And yes, some of them are just 'road articles', pure and simple, what's less clear as to whether those approach the stated total, or indeed the usual creation threshold. However, I don't see any of the requested input from the London projecteers, so perhaps I'm attracting undue grief unto my personage to little ultimate purpose. Alai 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • FWIW Cat:Geography stubs has Cat:Building and structure stubs as a subtype, but not Cat:Road stubs - and as such much of your point above isn't actually valid as far as the way the hierarchy currently operates. For the most part, these stubs are not about neighbourhoods - they are indeed about the individual roads mentioned in the titles. Even if only 60% of them are, that's still 57 stubs, and I'd say that 60% is a very very conservative estimate. Grutness...wha? 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh, that settles everything, then. In fact, the whole structure of the -geos and the -B&Ss is massively inconsistent from case to case, being sometimes a subcat, and sometimes not, and I'm inclined to believe that when they are a subcategory (the B&S root included), it's as much through "where to put a by-region type?" issue as any settled "buildings as geography" taxonomy. And, are you arguing that "roads" are a subset of "structures", which are a subset of "geography" (as above), or that roads aren't a subset of geography (as your original 'mis-sorted' claim)? (Well, actually, you've been arguing both, but I'm hoping you can be induced to pick just one of the above.) You may be correct about "for the most part", but equally you may not, and it's rather difficult to say without getting into a case-by-case wrangle about the whole list. (Bearing in mind you don't seem to have specifically addressed my point about the particular example already cited.) However, if there are 60 "primarily about roads as an aspect of transport" stubs, I have no actual objection to this. (In practice this may require either not looking at the contents, if this is created, or else taking numerous Natracalms.) There's 19 double-stubbed with both, which is a plausible start.
          • Let me comment what I hope is one final time on the NY/London thing, since I've already said I am not going to continue to comment on what in my view has nothing at all to do with the NY proposal, under that heading -- and frankly that it ever got to the point of "opposition contingent on argumentative hypothetical" was pretty ridiculous. This also seems to be the only type where there's ever been any material question at issue. Road-stubs should clearly be split up by sub-region where viable and/or necessary to do so, and splitting up the U.S. by state should be beyond any argument, and much more logical than the "particular by-state system" scheme foisted on us by the road-warriors. Tagging articles as "roads" that are questionably, secondarily, or not-really-at-all {{road-stubs}} is much less clear-cut, and that's what I was commenting on here. Is it clear that those are different things? Is it clear I'm not in fact saying what I've elsewhere been assumed and/or stated to be saying? If so, then enough said. Alai 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Sigh. Of course I'm not arguing that they are building and structure stubs. The reason I mentioned that they were technically more that than geo-stubs is that I was following your logic of how they should be assigned. if I followed the way you were thinking they should be more that geo-stubs, they should count as structures. But they aren't either - we aren't silly enough to regard building and structure stubs as a logical parent for road stubs, just as I hope we're not silly enough to regard geography stubs as a natural parent for it. As for being correct "for the most part" without going on a case by case basis, how the hell do you think I came up with that figure? I went on a cae by case basis, and I'd say that somewhere between 65 and 75% (hence my 60% being conservative) are roads first, neighbourhoods as distant second if at all. There are considerably more than 60 as primarily about roads as roads - that is, things called roads with roads in the title of the articles, sincwe they are about roads, not about suburbs or districts or neighbourhoods and clearly not so becausrs the articles are about roads. Is that clear enough? Listen - I'm sick to death of arguing this point with you - I can't see why on earth you would object to it. Your comments so far have made absolutely no sense on this matter. Alai, have you even looked at the articles you're arguing about? What is there about Kingsway (London), say, that makes it less than obviously about a thoroughfare? or Addington Street? Or City Road? Or Baylis Road? Or Lea Bridge Road? Blackfriars Road? Cockspur Street? Kennington Road (part of the A23, BTW)? Great Dover Street (part of the A2)? Shall I go on? Since the argument for NewYork-road-stub is to include those new York city streets currently covered by US-road-stub, I can't see any difference - or is there something special about the likes of 50th Street (Manhattan) or Avenue C (Manhattan) that make them more obviously about a vehicular thoroughfares and less obviously about neighbourhoods than Finsbury Pavement? Grutness...wha? 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television episode subcats

[edit] Television character subcats

[edit] Poetry subtypes

[edit] Cat:Dominican Republic baseball pitcher stubs

[edit] Geography related stub template

I propose to create stub template similar to {{socio-stub}}

as This geography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

There's no similar stub template for geography. I propose to use existing template ((geography-stub)) - no articles link here. This stub only redirects to ((geo-stub)): {{geo-stub}}

This stub is used for geographical locations and everything links here.

This stub would be used to track stubs related to geography (I mean geography as a scientific discipline). I want to avoid using ((geo-term-stub)), because some terms are not geographical terms per se but only related to geography.

My editing was reverted, so I write here. Thanks in advance. GeoW 12:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd support this, on the provisos that there's complete clarity and explicit statement that the scope is geography as a discipline, and not for articles about locations and individual geographical features, so as to minimise the confusion with the "-geo-" hierarchy, and that there's some reasonable number of stubs that this would apply to (bearing in mind the existing subcat). Alai 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• subcats, Alai - I suspect that, as I mentioned to GeoW a couple of days ago, many of the stubs that could take this already take such things as geo-term-stub, map-stub, geographer-stub and topography-stub. Can you give us a few examples of some that don't, please? Making a parent from them that is different from the geo-stubs (which are for specific location articles) would make sense if there are enough of them that wouldn't qualify for one of those stub types. The problem with using geography-stub for that, though, is that it's still a very frequently used redirect - on my daily clean-out of the main geography stub category I'd say half of the new items put into it use that redirect (so that's about three or four new stubs using it daily). Perhaps {{geography-sci-stub}} (or {{geo-sci-stub}}) would be a more appropriate name? Grutness...wha? 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea about the template name(s). Perhaps {{geography-stub}} might be turned into a "please use something else" message, along the pattern of {{football-stub}}. Alai 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ok. Here are some examples from ((geo-term-stub) that could be changed: Association of American Geographers, Behavioral geography, Environment and Planning, Environmental geography, Geosophy, Health geography, Language geography, Maritime geography, Panbiogeography, Philosophy of Geography, Phytogeography, Population geography, Social geography, Strategic geography, Time geography, Visual geography. These are also stubs: Regional geography, Historical geography, Marketing geography, Military geography, Geographic information science. I also wanted to use it for example for Americanization, Westernization ... - to classify this as geographical term (using the geo-term-template) would not be appropriate. It's only related to Cultural geography. I agree with creation of ((geo-sci-stub)) instead of my first proposal.

A little thin on the ground, but it would have natural children, some of which are currently not-very-well placed as children of geo-term-stub - I suggest the following hierarchy:

• Cat:Geography stubs
  • Cat:Continent/region-specific geography stubs
    • Cat:Country-specific geography stubs
      • Cat:Subnational region-specific geography stubs
  • Cat:Geography science stubs
    • Cat:Cartography stubs
    • Cat:Geographer stubs
    • Cat:Geography term stubs
    • Cat:Topography stubs

Grutness...wha? 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care much about hierarchy this time, but about the creation of stub that would state that: This geography related article is a stub. Geography is quite interdisciplinary study. Issues that are in scope of geographers are also in scope of other scientists (example is the process of americanization - it falls within the scope of language scientists as was written on the talk page recently, many could contribute to this issue from different views and expand the stub). In many cases it's also ridiculous when it states that this geographical term is stub. Association of American Geographers is a bright example of this. On the other hand academic geography on wikipedia does not have that many articles, that every geographical discipline could have its own stub. So, I think its good solution at present. GeoW 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point with the hierarchy is that 30 stubs by itself isn't really sufficient for a stub type - but 30 and four child categories is more likely to get support. As to where it itself would fit into the tree, it would fit not only into Cat:Geography stubs but also into a category for earth sciences (along with Cat:Geology stubs et al.) Grutness...wha? 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, why everything else what does not fit in the other categories is in the ((geo-term-stub)). Maybe it would be better to change the text of ((geo-term-stub)) to Geography related article instead of this geographical term is stub.GeoW 15:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{punctuation-stub}}

[edit] Bank stubs

[edit] Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs

I've just merged the Ancient-Rome-town-stubs in here, but of course, the fate of this type is itself... under question, at best. The creator didn't repropose this one, which I think is marginal, but potentially sensible, so I'll float it here to get some clarity one way or the other. (If kept, I suggest a rename to Cat:Ancient Roman geography stubs.) Alai 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. All geo-stubs are sorted by present day country. Unless Ancient Rome has suddenly made a reappearance as a modern country, I don't see any point in this one at all, especially since every stub which could be marked with it is better double-stubbed with present location and a plain Ancient-Rome-stub. If we allow an Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, then it is an unhealthy precedent which is very likely to see the creation of similar stubs for ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Thrace, Kievian Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Ghana, Ancient Zimbabwe, Nubia, the Incan Empire, Mesopotamia... I for one do not want to suddenly discover CeltoLigurian-geo-stub or Seleucid-geo-stub and then have to re-sport all the stubs marked with them back into their present day countries where most editors would be more likely to expect to find them. Then you've got the added problem of significant multistubbing of places with long histories. Lincoln, for example, might get Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, Danelaw-geo-stub, Mercia-geo-stub and Lincolnshire-geo-stub, even assuming it wasn't around during pre-Roman Britain. It may seem trivial in some cases (would anyone logically think of Lincoln as Ancient-Roman? Probably not), but not in others (how about Colchester or York?). On the whole, I think the whole idea is a bad one. Grutness...wha? 10:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So you think that Assyria (Roman province) and Carinae and Alsium are better off in modern-day-country categories? We may have the luxury for the time being of just chucking them back into Cat:Ancient Rome stubs, (where they came from, btw, rather than being defected country-geo-stubs) but won't we be telling each other what a great idea this is in several hundred stubs' time? Alai 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I'm certain we'll be fighting to be the first to take it to SFD. If you look at most of the stubs relating to Roman provinces, they are in current-day geo-stub categories, as should be the Assyria, Carinae, and Alsium ones. The fact that they aren't in current day geo-stub categories illustrates clearly that stubs which would normally be marked with a present-day-country geo-stub are not being marked as such because they are in this category. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That latter is rather convoluted logic: these were all until recently in the "Ancient Roman" parent, and none of the ones I looked at ever had a (different) -geo-stub, despite having existed for quite a while. (I hardly think you can blame this type for these not being sorted as you'd wish -- you must have a very different estimate of how many of the bazillions of stubs are in any sense "optimally sorted" than I do, I suppose.) And on the former, you didn't really address the point: once there's 1000 Ancient-Rome-stubs, and some large chunk of them are "places": would you really oppose a "much needed split" on that basis, and, well, why? Granted we're a long way short of that happening, but I hate having to undo work that there's every prospect of having to redo later. "Risk of failure to properly double-stub" is inherent to about, oh, at least 100,000 stub articles, I'd guess, and for articles that are only meaningful in a Roman historical context, like the above, if I had to ditch one, I'd certainly ditch the modern-day one, on the basis of primary notability, which I think is in distinct danger of being thrown out with the bathwater here. Alai 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • all of this is a corollary point to what I have been saying. Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs is currently a child of Cat:Ancient Rome stubs and Cat:Geography stubs, but has no permanent category parent. If the need exists, there should be a Cat:Ancient Roman geography stubs category that is a child of Cat:Ancient Roman geography. In this case such a stubs category could also be a child of Cat:Ancient Rome stubs, in order to support the perm cat structure of Cat:Ancient Roman geography being a child of Cat:Ancient Rome. Again, another instance of us creating our own separate categorisation system that contradicts the guidelines establised at WP:CAT --Ohms law 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Everything seems to be a corollary to this point, that unfortunately you're not making in the least clear. This is an unproposed stub type -- how is its current structure in any way the responsibility, or characteristic of some systematic failing in, the stub guidelines or the stub sorting project? Given that the permanent parent does exist (but was just never added to the category page), I really, truly don't understand what you're getting at. A missing parent does not constitute a "separate system". And in what way are we contradicting WP:CAT? Alai 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure how to be more clear. What is not clear? We should not be making tree structures out of stub categories. A stub category should be required to have a normal category as at least one of it's parents, if indeed more that one category is required. Why? read below. As for how we are contradicting WP:CAT, that is how. I point you in the direction of WP:CAT for further explanation of how. --Ohms law 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure how to be more clear about what's not clear. If I understand your position on this particular category, it's exactly the same as mine. I don't see how it relates to your more general poiint, but that might be because I have no idea what your more general point is. I have not the slightest ides what you mean by "We should not be making tree structures out of stub categories", and nor do I understand how that relates to your earlier interventions, either. Are you suggesting that stub categories should whenever possible have permanent parents? As I've said, that's already the case. (Don't blame "the locals" for what other people do in particular instances. It seems a little pointless to add it now in this instance, since it seems highly likely to be either renamed (i.e., deleted and recreated elsewhere), or deleted outright.) Are you suggesting that stub categories should always have permanent parents? That's not always possible, sometimes there's nothing suitable available (such as the drama-films-by-decade, for example). Are you suggesting that stub categories should not (also) have stub type parents? Clearly they should, per normal categorisation practice, and given that it follows that the stub categories will form a tree (well, a directed acyclic graph...). That does not make them "separate". On "that is how"? Sorry, but what is how? If you can't tell me that category "X" breaks clause "Y" of the categorisation policy, I fear I'm not going to be much helped by just linking to that page (not being able to find it wasn't the problem, believe me). Alai 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Let be be sure that I understand the current debate correctly. Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs is being nominated as a stubs category. It is already created by someone who aparently created it without first proposing it, so ultimately this current debate is whether or not to keep the category or rename it. This particular thread of the debate is saying Strong oppose due to the fact that geo-stubs are sorted according to the current day country that the article would be about.

This sort of thinking is what I am arguing against, and the funny thing is that I beleave that you are as well Alai. Gruntness said earlier that "If we allow an Ancient-Rome-geo-stub, then it is an unhealthy precedent which is very likely to see the creation of similar stubs for ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Thrace, Kievian Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Ghana, Ancient Zimbabwe, Nubia, the Incan Empire, Mesopotamia...", which is what caused me to reply to this thread. In my view, the goal of what we are doing in this project should be putting stub articles closest to those who can ultimately make the article in question complete enough to no longer be considered stub class.

There already exists a categorisation system that we should be placing articles into (in addition to placing stub tags on them) in order to facilitate the ultimate goal of making wikipedia more complete. Personally, I want to make a stub article visible to those who can ultimately help the article. I believe that the best result that we could hope for is to be able to say that a category of stubs needs to be deleted because all of the stub articles in it have been improved to the point that they are no longer stubs. We should not be sorting articles to places where the people that can help those articles will not see the articles at all! I do not see the utility in only creating stubs categories that can be filled with a certain amount of articles, as that can contradict the ultimate goal of marking an article as a stub. What I am saying boils down to this: if a stub class article is created that falls into a "permanent category", it should be placed into a stub category that matches it's "permanent category" regardless of the number of other articles in that category there may be. I do not understand what the hang up is in saying that "there is only one article in this stubs category". If a stubs category has 0 articles, then we as wikipedians have won the fight in moving any articles of stub class to be full articles. However, if there is even one article that can be placed in a specific category, what is the harm in creating a matching "(insert category name) stubs" category to hold that article and therby call attention to it? Why are we in the buisness of recreating the work of the WP:CAT guideline, especially when we don't seem to be using the same criteria that they are? Not every single category should have a corresponding stubs category, as that is completely unnessesary and is patently silly. However, a stubs category should be allowed to be created for any category where it's obviously usefull. The categories themselves are created by people who know the subjects that are being put into that category, and I find this process's willingness to ignore that work and create our own structures to be counter productive. If the need exists, there should be a Cat:Ancient Roman geography stubs category that is a child of Cat:Ancient Roman geography. since there are currently 34 articles in Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs, I would think that the need for such a category would be obvious. To say that it's unnessesary because "all geo-stubs are supposed to be in their modern day name category" is rediculous, since those who can help move the articles in an Ancient Roman geography stubs category would be the same people that look for articles in the Ancient Roman geography category. A worse result is to create sub-categories out of existing stub categories, simply to make the original stub category smaller. If the sub categories that are being created are children of existing categories, then that's great because it puts the article closer to those who can help it. If however the sub category being created has no matching permanent category (or is simply not matched to a permanent category), then that bad as it places the article in a place where it may not be seen.

There is no need for us to argue about what categories should exist, here. If anyone wishes to do that, there's a WP:CFD procedure that can be followed. If the category exists that an article should be in, then the article should be placed into that category. There then should be a corresponding stubs category that can easily be created as required, without controversy or question.

Ultimately, you can mark me down in the Strong support camp, with the caveat that the rename should occur. --Ohms law 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm understand you correctly, we agree in this particular instance, but on the general principle of "create a stub category for everything there exists 60 stubs for", which is what you appear to be saying here (correct me if I'm wrong), I disagree strongly, for the reasons I've tried to articulate several times already (when you previously appeared to be suggesting something to that general effect). Just to be clear, that has nothing to do with the categorisation policy, which in no way implies doing such a thing, nothing to do with "separate stub trees" (which does not correctly describe what we do), and is contrary to the existing stub guidelines (where we expressly say to avoid cutting across existing stub categories, again for the reasons that we don't want hundreds of thousands of stub categories, and we don't want dozens of stub categories (much less actual tags) used per article). If I'm missing some details in your reply, please excuse me, in a rush, may not be able to get back to this before Monday. Alai 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Change: "create a stub category for everything there exists 60 stubs for" to say something like "create a stub category any time that there is a stub article in a category". The only real criticism that I can recall to this is there being a problem with articles ending up in a theoretical "1954 Births stubs" category, which I can't anyone ever finding the need to create. It is usually fairly obvious, based on content of the article itself and the articles that it is (or should be) placed with whether or not a category is actually something that people would naturally browse through. I don't know many experts on "1954 births", but if the person is a politician or an actor, there are certainly experts on those topics who will browse through those categories. The point that I am making is simply that there's really no need for us to be proposing stub categories and arguing about each, then proposing again and arguing again, etc... ad nausium. Put articles in categories. If the article is a stub, place it in an exactly matching stubs category. done, end of story. Once the stubs category is empty (if ever), it can be deleted. Why are the existance of stubs categories even an issue? Are we afraid of having too many? --Ohms law 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I don't think it'll create this rash of other sorted-by-civilization ones that you're so paranoid about. This is a one-off, and articles would just be sorted into this one and their present-country one, and NO OTHERS.

User|Neddyseagoon 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't see how you can guarantee that this is a one-off, and that we won't suddenly get an Ancient-Greece-geo-stub for places stretching through Alexander's conquests, or an Inca-geo-stub for pre-Columbian South America. We've seen one stub type used as a precedent for others only too often here at WP:WSS in the past, and I'm not happy to open the door to yet more such. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to keep the door shut pretty well to me. You still don't seem to have answered why you could not run such geo-stubs in parallel to the existing, 'current country' system, - giving any stub a modern country or modern country and ancient country, but never solely an ancient country as in your nightmare scenario - rather than the latter making the former an impossibility. Previous historical subdivisions inevitably cut across modern borders and include multiple modern countries, in some cases (empires) more than others. So if such a parallel system was set up (and you don't seem to be short of people to police it), historian wikipedia writers could home in on Roman empire cities, rather than having to trawl two-dozen modern country ones, and de-stub them with greater ease, speed and efficiency. Thus it makes sense from a historian's perspective even if not from a WPS police perspective that some (not me) might see as draconian or even blinkered.

• • • I'm sorry if that comes across strong, but there does seem to be little understanding of any perspectives on this issue other than the zealously-defended perspectives of the WPS set - perhaps a sub-group of historian/stub police is needed.User|Neddyseagoon

• • • • I'm not sure how helpful it is to make sweeping generalisations about the WSS "set" 'zealously-defending' something, especially given that of the long-standing regulars, exactly two have chimed in, and between us we seem to have exactly two, diametrically opposed opinions. (I could have saved myself both effort, and seemingly grief from both 'sides' if I'd just gone ahead and deleted this -- it's been sitting on the to-be-deleted queue for a fortnight.) But bear in mind the "nightmare scenario" is exactly what's in place at present. Not because they were sorted and then de-sorted, as G. assumes, but because they were never sorted by location in the first place. And you may think there's a lot of WSS "manpower", but have you seen the size of our backlog? I don't agree this is sufficient reason to extirpate such stub types, but I do sympathise with his point. Alai 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, sorry, that was completely unfair, heat of the moment stuff. User|Neddyseagoon 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as Alai points out above, several of the articles are no longer being sorted into the present-day country-geo-stub categories where they should be, presumably at least in part because this category is being regarded as an alternative rather than as a complementary stub type. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just because its true use as complementary hasn't become established yet.User|Neddyseagoon 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So many cities are Roman in Europe that this would hardly be an underpopulated stub-category, certainly. User|Neddyseagoon 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not arguing that it would be underpopulated - that is the least of my concerns. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Grutness. Otherwise we'll end up labelling an article about Paphlagonia with both "Ancient Rome", "Ancient Greece", "Hittites", "Byzantine Empire", "Ottoman Empire", "Seljuk Empire" and "Turkey". Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that misses the point (and ignores primary notability as a criterion). Where there's an article about a Roman province, or a town that existed only during Roman times, or where there's a separate article for the Roman incarnation thereof, is it really most usefully sorted by modern political division? Alai 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Fort-Worth-stub}}

[edit] {{England-musician-stub}}

[edit] Boat Club Stubs

[edit] Upmerged US school templates at or near threshold

[edit] Cat:European sports venue stubs update

[edit] Further split of Euro-athletics-bio-stubs

[edit] Cat:1968 Summer Olympics stubs

[edit] Bishop subcats

[edit] Long Island Rail Road station stubs

[edit] Belgium stub splitting

[edit] {{RC-stub}} revisited...

[edit] Other stub-related discussions

[edit] Nazi stubs

My question concerns these stub categories: Nazi Germany stubs, German military personnel stubs, German World War II stubs, and World War II biography stubs. The military personnel category seems to be for the current German military, Bundeswehr, which is distinct from the Nazi military organizations and German military before the Nazi era.

"Nazi Germany" and "German World War II" have a considerable semantic overlap and both contain Nazi topics. "Nazi Germany" contains many WWII biography stubs. I'm not sure how this big mess should be sorted out. Any ideas? My main problem is where to stub-sort SS officers. As noted by Kirill Lokshin in a previous discussion in the wikiproject Military history, Category:German military personnel includes WWII figures. Wipe 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought this would be a problem at the time the German WWII category was made, and don't remember ever hearing of a WWII bio stub type before. I'd double-stub or even triple-stub with the other three. Ah - I've just discovered that the WWII-bio-stub is an "illicit creation" and needs listing at WP:WSS/D - and possibly SFD. As you've implied in your comments, it causes problems with the stub hierarchy. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be OK if German WWII stubs were a subcategory of Nazi Germany stubs (in addition to other categories)? It's logical: Nazi Germany includes time before the war and also non-war things. All German WWII related is (by definition, I believe) also Nazi Germany related. Hence no need to double-stub. I don't like the idea of using Germany-mil-bio-stub in WWII bios as long as it only references Bundeswehr. Wipe 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any reason why not, but I'd wait to see what other opinions arise here before doing anything about it. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poet stubs

I'm currently populating the {{Haiti-writer-stub}}. This and similar templates state that it is used on articles about writers, playwrights and poets. However, we also have {{Poet-stub}} hanging around. It seems a bit foolish to use both on the same articles. Suggestions are welcome. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, here's the proposal for poet-stub. I had voiced my concerns then too. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's pretty much inevitable given the "twin track" approach to tagging by occupation and by nationality: writers are likewise split both by 'type', and by nationality. Categories in each hierarchy are going to become viably splittable and/or over-full at different rates, so are going to often get "out of step". Alai 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)