Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This pages recreates the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria page. The original has now been split into two subpages:

These pages are transcluded into this page. Please do not add discussions on this page directly! Use the section edit links or the links given above and again before the transcluded sections.

Below is the transclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals (edit)

Shortcut:
WP:WSS/P
WikiProject Stub sorting
 v • d • e 
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) 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

[edit] Proposing new stubs - procedure

Proposing new stubs
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
  1. Check at Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
  5. 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, March 2007

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

[edit] NEW PROPOSALS

[edit] {{house-musician-stub}} / Cat:House musician stubs

CatScan says there is 37 potentials tagged with {{electronic-musician-stub}} in Cat:House musicians. StubSense says there is 260 potential stubs starting from Cat:House musicians. I think truth is somewhere in between. I suggest upmerged template first and optionally category after proper count gives over 60 stub articles. Some articles would be double-tagged with national electronic-musician-stub, but I think that isn't something bad. Monni 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{pune-geo-stub}}

Hi, I am proposing this new stub regarding city of pune. There are many article marked with this stub. This stub was already created by me. Though I was not aware of this standard procedure of proposing and then creating. Have a look at which shows that there are enough article to support creation of this stub. Please decide on soon as this stub is already marked for deletion. :(

Following are standard guidelines for proposing a new stub, lets see if this stub meets criteria

Checked! No such stub exists

  • Will the new type be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? Remember that using stubs categories is a way to facilitate article expansion

Definately helpful, there are many new articles regarding pune that are marked with this stub

  • Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type, or create a well-defined subtype that does?

Some (not all) pune related article are marked in {{maharashtra-geo-stub}}, but those are lost in long list that this stub has. Having a more specific stub makes sense

  • Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type?

Right now I am able to find some 65 articles and are marked with this stub, and can definately grow if other volunteers jump in

  • Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types?

Possible, but overlapping is among different categories, For eg; Sawai Gandharva Music Festival is a very well known music festival of pune. It is stubed in both Cat:Music festival stubs and this stub.

  • If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount?

I don't believe so

Now please decide quickly, I don't want this stub to get deleted before any decision is reached. And sorry for not proposing it here.

spacejuncky 04:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Bolivia-bio-stub}}

Bolivia is still missing a -bio template (parent holds 177 articles). Category if / when we reach 60. I didn't do a proper count. Valentinian T / C 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film terminology stub

I'd like to propose an additional stub for the Film categories, one that parallels the [[Category:Film and video terminology]] category - either {film-terminology-stub} or (a bit too long IMHO) {film-and-video-terminology-stub}. There are about 50 currently marked simply as film-stub at this point, a few of which are: Cinema Novo, Classical Hollywood cinema, Collective for Living Cinema, Czechoslovak New Wave, Cinema of Nepal, Cinema of Israel, Cinemaphile, Differents, False ending, Film previews, First run films, Flashing arrow, Fly on the wall, Foreign film, Happy ending, Hawksian woman, Heterodiegetic, Hitchcockian, Holding deal, Hollywood cycles, Incendiary (film), Infinifilm, International co-production, Limited release, Low-budget film, Manitoba Barcode, Mobile cinema, Movie stills photographer, Negative cost, Nuevo Cine Mexicano, One last big job, Package film, Palestinian cinema, Poetic realism, Pressbook, Private screening (film), Red curtain, Remodernist film, Replication (metallography), Revival house, Set dresser, Sex scene, Snipe (theatrical), Tarzan yell, Tear jerker, Vamp (woman).

Additionally, there are quite a few articles in other stub categories, such as filming, that are probably mis-categorized and would belong here. SkierRMH 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support We do have several stubs under film-stub that could do with this sub sorting. I am not sure about the stub-type name. I leave it for someone more experienced to decide. Hoverfish Talk 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As for the name, we do use X-term-stub for some things such as geographical terms (and I think the same for geology). I realise they're hardly that closely related to film, but at least it gives a precedent for that type of stub name. Perhaps a {{film-term-stub}} with a redirect at {{video-term-stub}}, leading into Cat:Film and video terminology stubs?

[edit] Medieval music stubs

I'd like to propose adding a stub category for medieval music, as {medieval-music-stub}. Most music historians tend to focus on periods and not types of things associated with music, and thus the stub categories by "composers", "albums", "groups," are less useful for finding stubs on particular periods of expertise. I found 79 stubs with stub sense in the category Medieval Music, of which about 45 seemed to be candidates for going into the new category. I also found about 25 articles which stub sense did not find. Here are about 50 of the most interesting.

Adam of St. Victor,Adenet Le Roi,Albertus Parisiensis,Aleyn,Ambitus (music),Andreas Staier,Anonymous IV,Audefroi le Batard,Bamberg Codex,Basse danse,Baude Cordier,Beatritz de Dia,Cancioneiro da Biblioteca Nacional, (music publication stub--incorrect: not published) Canso (song),centonization,Chantilly Codex,Cornamuse,Crab canon,Dames Margot and Maroie,Ekphonetic notation,Engelberg Codex,Estampie (band),Euouae,Falsobordone,Formes fixes,François Andrieu,Gregorian Modes,Heer Halewijn,Heinrich von Ofterdingen,Ivrea Codex,Kassia,Ligature (music),Matteo da Perugia,Mensurstrich,Micrologus,Monochord,Monophony,Naker,Odo of Arezzo,Ordo Virtutum,Oswald von Wolkenstein,Pastorela,Planh,Prolation,Psalter (Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, MS A. I. 14) ,Robertsbridge Codex (classical composition stub--incorrect: a book of compositions), Rote,Sequentia (music group),St. Martial School,Thomas Fabri,Tuotilo,Vielle

This is my first time proposing a new stub category, so I'd appreciate any help refining it. --Myke Cuthbert 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • My first thought was to wonder whether a combination of bios and non-bios was such a good idea, but to be fair, and as you point out, it does seem to fall under a single permcat, in a way that just the people wouldn't seem to. I'd say it seems fair enough, though ideally the people would get a combination of stub tags that covers their occupation, their nationality, as well as their "genre" (to regard this is that light, very broadly). So that might require some triple tagging, in cases there there's no single "country-occupation-stub" template (but things could be worse). Alai 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think medieval-music-stub is a good start. We could refine it into medieval-composer-stub, medieval-music-theorist-stub, medieval-music-manuscript-stub, medieval-music-source-stub, medieval-music-theory-stub, and so forth, but there will always be outliers. It's a messy area that doesn't quite fit in with the way things are classified elsewhere. Some of the topics (e.g. François Andrieu) will probably never be much longer than stub-length, since little is known about them (unless someone has published material on his handful of known compositions). Antandrus (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind that there's always the option of creating those as templates (only) now feeding into the same category, with a view to "future expansion" if there's an anticipated need. Alai 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed about some of the articles never getting longer than stub length--I asked on Wikiproject::Biography about articles like this and didn't get a response. They're not stubs (in the sense that anyone could do a little work and add to them), nor are they start class even, but they're definitely not B or A class by their definitions. As far as other things go: I'm not sure how to do what Alai proposes, but it sounds like that could be a good idea.
      • Basically it'd just mean creating a number of separate stub templates, as usual, but giving them all the Cat:medieval music stubs category, until such time as they're "big enough to be out on their own". (i.e. keeping them upmerged until they're past the creation threshold, as we say in the local jargon). I sympathise about the "permastubs": this seems to be becoming an issue in all sorts of areas. One possible remedy is merging, but how well that's likely to work for medieval musicians (unless a given group are truly closely related in some obvious way) seems unclear. Maybe it's a sign that wikipedia's getting "full"?(!) Alai 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinism stub

We at Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism would like a stub template for our stub articles. You can find a list of our current stub articles at Category:Stub-Class Calvinism articles. While I'm not sure that 100% of these all qualify strictly as stubs. I'm sure it's more than the 30 required for a WikiProject stub template, and nearly certain that more than 80 of the 122 stubs would be classified as a stub by anyone.

The proposal would be to use the name Template:stub-calvinism, and continue using the current category.

-- TimNelson 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The current category, as in Cat:Stub-Class Calvinism articles? But that's a talk-page, WP1.0 assessment style cat, and which there's already a means of populating. If you want a stub type per se, it'd by convention be at {{Calvinism-stub}} / Cat:Calvinism stubs. I may be confused about what you mean here... Alai 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that we have nearly 2000 stub types, all in the form X-stub, I doubt you'll get much support for calling this one stub-X. Also, there is a specific difference between the wikiproject specific article class system and general stub categories, so using the current category wouldn't make sense. If there are a reasonable number of artices, then a {{Calvinism-stub}} and Cat:Calvinism stubs would be reasonable, though I wonder exactly why you want that given that you're already using a WP class-grading system. Grutness...wha? 03:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Modified proposal: I propose instead that we name it as suggested by User:Alai and User:Grutness. Their overwhelming arguments convinced me!
-- TimNelson 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. We also have {{Lutheran-stub}} (which is possibly not the world's best name). Support modified proposal. Valentinian T / C 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime-trades-stub

I'd like to propose a general stub type Maritime-trades-stub for use with WikiProject Maritime Trades that will help us manage stub-class sections and articles in this WP. The project is new, but 31 articles that fall into this category are listed here. Cheers. Haus42 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The scope seems a little ad hoc with respect to the permcats, it seems to me: roughly speaking this seems a bit like a union of Cat:marine occupations and Cat:sailors. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest either: creating separate upmerged templates for each of those; or, creating a stub type with a scope corresponding to a wider category (none spring to mind, but it might not be beyond the wit of man to devise and create one), that would encompass both. Alai 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I might have been a bit vague. The scope of the project includes not only the people and their occupations, but employers, historical events, labor issues, skill sets, techniques, and to some extent tools. I can't see a reasonable way to work around that level of complexity. Cheers. Haus42 01:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Personally I'm opposed to stub types with overtly "bespoke" scopes, if they can't be brought at least vaguely in line with other article-space categories, on the general basis of them being, well, article-space categories (at least more or less). Especially if the only way to explain what the scope is is with reference to the wikiproject, which then necessitates an (additional) self-ref being transcluded into articles, another Bad Thing (TM). That's what the talk-page templates and categories are for (insofar as having the two system in parallel makes any sense at all, i.e. to a fairly limited extent). Alai 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like it duplicates the scope of the existing {{water-stub}} / Cat:Water transport stubs and {{ocean-stub}} / Cat:Oceanography stubs and overlaps with {{fishing-stub}} / Cat:Fishing stubs and {{weather-stub}}, {{engineering-stub}} / Cat:Engineering stubs, and {{climate-stub}} / Cat:Atmospheric science stubs but only concerning the maritime aspects. Looks like most of those 31 stubs you mentioned should be marked with {{water-stub}} if they aren't already. I wouldn't mind a rename of {{water-stub}} to {{maritime-stub}} or something else to avoid people thinking it's a subtype of {{drink-stub}} and it appears that there enough stubs to at least warrant an upmerged {{marine-engineering-stub}}. The fishing stubs are small enough I'm doubtful of even a upmerged template for the oceanic fishing stubs at the present time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "Maritime" would be narrowing the scope, and departing from the current permcat parent, Cat:water transport. But perhaps there's a case for an additional maritime-stub, and adding a broad Cat:maritime transport permcat, or something to that general effect. Alai 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you both for your efforts on this. The concept, I think, if fairly easy: "Working on water." "Water transport" is almost right, but it misses a big chunk of people who work on the water. Fishermen are the easiest example. Offshore drilling is another. I'd be happy making due with "water-transport" but it seems a bit like using a fish as a hammer (which I'm not opposed to). Haus42 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I take your point; I didn't want to suggest just Cat:maritime, since using adjectives as category names isn't preferred, though I suppose if the worst comes to the worst, Cat:maritime topics would cover it. But then if we create Cat:maritime topic stubs we'd have a substantial overlap between the two, but no strict inclusion... Alai 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You do realise we also already have {{Fishing-stub}} which would cover at least some of that? Grutness...wha? 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surprisingly Absent Basketball Terminology

The term "airball" is definitely basketball jargon and (through empirical tests of my girlfriend) anyone who is unfamiliar with the game will surely have little idea of what the term really means. This is why I propose a stub for this term, as it has also been sighted in many articles: Jason McElwain, Traveling (basketball), Jim Valvano, 1983 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, Raja Bell-Kobe Bryant Rivalry, 21 (basketball)

In the article: Variations of basketball it is only given a bracketed definition, however, because it is used in all these other articles I think it is worth having.

Note that this page is for proposing stub templates and categories: if you just want to create a stub article, just edit airball (basketball), if if your account is too newly-created, ask at WP:AFC. Alai 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, altho unless the article is going to include information about the origin or other history of the term, a link to the Wiktionary entry would be better. [[wikt:airball]] will produce a link to the Wiktionary entry on airball. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US-hoops-bio subcats

  • Cat:United States small forward stubs
  • Cat:United States basketball power forward stubs
  • Cat:United States basketball center stubs
  • Cat:United States shooting guard stubs
  • Cat:United States point guard stubs

This has been oversized for a long time, but on hold due to a lack of any plausible permcats to split on. I've created those now (you'll note I personfully resisted the urge to de-Websterise l'utilisation dérivé du mot français «centre»). On the theory those'll be populated in the fullness of time, there's 1300+ such stubs, and that a basketball lineup has exactly one of each of the five positions, these should all be more than viable (unless there's a lot of very lopsided teams out there, or some subtle systematic positional bias at work). I'm not sure exactly what to suggest for templates, but I'd suggest that for some sort of clarity, they either use the name of the position in full (hyphens you could argue either way), or they at least prefix whatever obscure abbreviation might be current with the established template element "hoops-". Upmerged double-catted templates for generic forwards, generic guards, power-centers, swingmen, point forwards and other such hybrids would also be feasible, if anyone especially feels the need. Alai 23:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Have you/we considered splitting by decade of birth, same as with actors? It might be a better way of sorting than by court position since there is a certain amount of overlap with some players... Grutness...wha? 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We did do something like that for baseball, but only after splitting by position (a bit better defined in that sport, I'll grant you), though in that case it was decade-of-activity, rather than of birth. Alai 06:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, some kind of split is definitely overdue... perhaps by position first and by years if any further splitting is needed (the by position cats will already be approaching 300 each). BTW, are coaches already split out? If not, that would also probably be useful. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • They're not, but I was assuming it'd been proposed already... If not, seems like a plan. Alai 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Coaches are already split out as are women. I have looked at some of the articles and there seems to be more articles with a date of birth than a position, and half those with a position are vague (point/guard could be one of four positions from what I can tell) so I would suggest a split by decade of birth. Waacstats 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
            • D'oh... significant undersorting, then. Point guard is a single position, though in theory, forward-centre could denote three positions, and forward-guard, four (likely to really mean two in each case, as I understand it). I've been working on categorising these, and I've tagged around 400 that were relatively "obvious" (but skipping the forward-centers and forward-guards, at least for the time being). If domain experts get on the case, that should go up quite a bit. But admittedly, there's already 1200 in DoB cats, so that would be pretty easy to do. Alai 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I should mention that if we go with "..., 19X0s birth stubs" cats, then the 40s..80s are all viable by a distance, with a big drop off down to the 30s, which was at 41 at last dump. (New dump cycle has started, btw, contain your collective excitement.) Alai 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:European football biography stubs split

Categories for those nation already have Template

But there is a big problems, the total numbers of these nation's players article, almost all were stub, it look stupid to cat all article in the nation to stub cat. Matthew_hk tc 04:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And unmerged Template for

Matthew_hk tc 04:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support categories are close enough and templates seem viable size wise. Waacstats 07:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian, French football biography stubs, split

Just like the English one, split into player's position. Matthew_hk tc 04:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Makes sense. Alai 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Support . Waacstats 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syria sports

First I apologize, I didn't know about this proposal system being in place, so I had actually created the stub template ( {{Template:Syria-sports-stub}}) and category... If they should be deleted before this proposal is accepted, someone can do that or tell me. Some articles that could use this proposed stub: Abbasiyyin Stadium, Al Majd, Al Taliya, Al-Assad Stadium, Al-Futowa, Al-Hamadaniah Stadium, Al-Horriya, Al-Ittihad (Aleppo), Al-Jaish (Syria), Al-Karamah, Al-Wahda (Damascus), Al-Wathba, Hutteen (Latakia), Jablah (football club), Khaled bin Walid Stadium, Syria at the 1948 Summer Olympics, Syria at the 1968 Summer Olympics, ....., Syria at the 2000 Summer Olympics,Firas Al Khatib, Tarek Jabban, Teshrin, Aatef Jenyat, Adnan Al Hafez, Jamal Al Sharif, Anas Al Khouja, Firas Issmael, Jehad Al Hussein, Mosab Balhous, Mustafa Hamsho, Naser Al Shami, Zyad Chaabo, Ghada Shouaa, Joseph Atiyeh, Al-Fayhaa Stadium.

  • Fairly sensibly scoped, but is it big enough for a separate category? (i.e., at least 60 existing stubs) If not, I suggest the template be kept, upmerged. (Though -sport-bio- and sport-venue- templates might be more useful for that purpose.) Alai 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi, I added some more, bringing the total above 30 articles. I should have mentioned that all these articles are part of WikiProject Syria (The requirement mentions 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject). Also, I am not opposed to having sport-bio and/or sport-venue templates. Asabbagh 03:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The scope of WPJ Syria is Syria (unless I've very much mistaken), and there's already a {{Syria-stub}}, so the "30 clause" doesn't apply here (otherwise, I'd apply everywhere). So, I'd suggest upmerging, as above. Alai 05:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the category is likely to be populated with 60 and more stubs in time. There are still hundreds of uncreated Syrian sport biography articles which are when created, most probably going to be stubs. That is if there aren't already 60 or more uncategorized articles out there. By the way, I've moved the stub template to the correct page - {{Syria-sport-stub}}. - Anas talk? 08:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European politicians

Eventhough the toolserver database only contains obsolete data, it still has its uses. I suggest the following templates (categories if / when we find 60 articles):

  • {{Ukraine-politician-stub}} Stub Sense reports 49 articles (out of 330 articles. The category now holds 390 articles).[2]
  • {{Luxembourg-politician-stub}} Stub Sense reports two figures: 47 [3] and 54.[4] Iff we get a category, I'd like to hear some native speakers of English commenting on the category name. We have Cat:Luxembourgian politicians but Cat:Luxembourgish people. I presume this means that the correct name will be Cat:Luxembourgian politician stubs if / when we find 60 stubs?
  • {{Lithuania-politician-stub}} Stub Sense gives 53 [5] which is probably a little too high. Anyway, enough for an upmerged template.
  • {{Iceland-politician-stub}} 40+, upmerged template
  • {{Croatia-politician-stub}} 40+, upmerged template
  • {{Serbia-politician-stub}} 40+, upmerged template

Valentinian T / C 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary suggests that Luxembourgian is the noun, Luxembourgish is the adjective. Thus bio-stubs relating to Luxembourgians should be in Cat: Luxembourgish people stubs. The politicians permcat is thus incorrectly named and should probably go to CFD. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on both List of adjectival forms of place names and the style guide I use, the GPO style guide, Luxembourger is the noun, and Luxembourg is the adjective form to be used. Firefox's spell checker doesn't complain about Luxembourgian (or Luxembourger), but it does not like Luxembourgish at all. Luxembourgian appears to refer to the language not the people. My 1962 copy of Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, doesn't give any adjectival forms at all which suggests that the word hasn't been in the English language long enough to obtain a definitive adjective form. Still, given that we have several sources that concur that using Luxembourg people and Luxembourg politicians is correct usage (not necessarily the only correct usage, but at least a correct usage) why don't we go with Cat:Luxembourg politician stub? Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer a name as consistent with the others as possible but if the permcat goes to CFD, a lot of other categories need to go the same way (see subcats of Cat:Luxembourgish people, most importantly Cat:Luxembourgian people by occupation) Valentinian T / C 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of this discussion I've done a mass CFD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_25#Luxembourgian_people suggesting a standardization on Luxembourgian. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of {{Wintersport-bio-stub}}

{{wintersport-bio-stub}} is over 650 articles, 2 sports and three nationalities having there own categories, according to stubsense the following would be possible (remember numbers may be inflated as I haven't done a hand count)

  • Cat:Ski jumping biography stubs / {{Skijump-bio-stub}} (207 articles)
  • {{Norway-skijump-bio-stub}} (45 articles) (upmerged included in above total)
  • Cat:Cross country skiing biography stubs / {{XC-skiing-bio-stub}} (229 articles excluding below)
  • Cat:Swedish cross country skiing biography stubs / {{Sweden-XC-skiing-bio-stub}} (78 articles)
  • Cat:Finnish cross country skiing biography stubs / {{Finland-XC-skiing-bio-stub}} (75 articles)
  • Cat:Norwegian cross country skiing biography stubs / {{Norway-XC-skiing-bio-stub}} (76 articles)
  • Cat:Russian cross country skiing biography stubs / {{Russia-XC-skiing-bio-stub}} (70 articles)
  • Cat:Alpine skiing biography stubs / {{Alpine-skiing-bio-stub}} (194 articles).

Waacstats 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems like a good plan to me. Alai 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm happy about about using an abbreviation, albeit one that is well determined as long as skiing is being mentioned. How about Cat:Nordic skiing biography stubs / {{Nordic-skiing-bio}} et al. instead of the XC entries? At the least, we could use it as a parent anyway for those who compete in the Nordic combined so as to as avoid double stubbing. Also, shouldn't that be {{skijumping-bio-stub}}? After all, we don't have a {{ski-bio-stub}}. Finally, we ought to consider {{biathlete-stub}} (65 entries) and either {{shootingsport-bio-stub}} (123 entries, not counting the biathletes) or {{shootingsport-stub}} (25 non-bio entries plus the athletes) to serve as a second parent for the biathlete stubs short of Cat:Firearms stubs. (All numbers courtesy of Stub Sense). Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that it probably should be skiijumping and not skijump, I also have no problem with using crosscountry as opposed to XC it's just that when you have a nation split the template becomes very large but then that not a big problem. Using nordic skiing instead of XC would not be a good idea because nordic skiing also encompases ski jumping, biathlon, nordic combined but as a parent for these cats I think would be useful

I back a proposal for biathlon but suggest {{biathlon-bio-stub}} in case there are any people who are known for there involvement in biathlon without necessarily being biathletes (coaches, organisers, announcers etc). I also back Cat:Sports shooters biography stubs but should the template be at Template:Shootingsports-bio-stub (the events are categorised under shooting sports) or {{sportshooting-bio-stub}} (the people involved are categorised under sport shooters). Waacstats 11:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organist-stub

  • A stub for all the organists that are currently in {{keyboardist-stub}}. A quick look on the Wikiproject PipeOrgan here will show the current list of organists, marked with stub as appropriate (there are still about 50 organists still to add to this list which may/not be stub class. Current estimate is around 85-100 articles. –MDCollins (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think this is a good idea. Computerjoe's talk 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bavarian geo subtypes

Holy Roman Empires, Batman: suddenly, Bavarian-geo-stub is at nearly 1200. In theory, this should be straightforward to split into:

  • Cat:Upper Franconia geography stubs
  • Cat:Middle Franconia geography stubs
  • Cat:Lower Franconia geography stubs
  • Cat:Swabia geography stubs
  • Cat:Upper Palatinate geography stubs
  • Cat:Upper Bavaria geography stubs
  • Cat:Lower Bavaria geography stubs

(the Regierungsbezirke) with 96 upmerged templates from the 96 constituents (Landkreise and kreisfreie Städte), since not every Germany state has the "middle" layer. However, there's zilch categorisation on either such basis, hence, no counts. Alai 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wir sind zwei Musikanten und komm'n aus Schwabenland ... If only "Franconia" didn't sound so bad :) The articles normally use the German forms like e.g. "Oberfranken". Support templates, categories when 60. Valentinian T / C 22:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What the heck is a music edge? :) Not for these regions they don't (at present): Upper Franconia, Middle Franconia, Lower Franconia, Swabia, Upper Palatinate, Upper Bavaria, Lower Bavaria. The districts seem to use the German forms (doubtless due to a lack of any likely English equivalent in most cases). Alai 23:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Popular material isn't included in German lessons in Danish schools. :) I just noticed that the articles about the districts use German forms except for the names of the see Amberg-Sulzbach. Perhaps the infoboxes were translated by bot. Valentinian T / C 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus Bio Stubs

{{Cyprus-bio-stub}} / {{Cyprus-footy-bio-stub}}

We need a stub for people of the EU nation of Cyprus. Historic Cypriot figures as well as footballers are two types that could be updated in we had a stub category for them. NYC2TLV 20:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Just did a hand count and found 67 people under Cat:Cyprus stubs. Support bio stub with an upmerged footy-bio.--Thomas.macmillan 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds feasible, but be warned - Cyprus is a minefield of editwars. I'd recommend having no icon for it (if you have a map, there are complaints from Greek Cypriots; if you have a flag, there are complaints from Turkish Cypriots. If you have a person, well it will almost certainly depend on their ancestry as to whether there are complaints and where from. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to make stubs for Northern Cypriots as well? This could please both sides and you could use different flags for each so that neither side is shown any real sovereignty over the island much like the Israel and Palestine stubs. NYC2TLV 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Given current usage of {{Israel-geo-stub}}, and past "discussions" about {{Palestine-stub}}, that's not what I'd call an encouraging comparison. Alai 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I would suggest that we stick with one Cyprus-stub as we have done with Korea. Besides, I am not sure that a TRNC-stub would even meet the minimum levels.--Thomas.macmillan 18:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Palestine is a special case in that it is recognised by a fairly large number of countries. It doesn't really bear much comparison with the situation in Cyprus from that viewpoint. WP:WSS has a fairly consistent record of deliberately avoiding stub types for places such as TRNC due to their lack of recognition and the potential for NPOV problems (which is why there aren't stub types for places which are probably more readily comparable such as Chechnya, Kurdistan, Ossetia, and Somaliland. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Provided we can avoid WWIII breaking out, I'll support a -bio (covering Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Latins, and Spaghetti Monsters) but {{Somaliland-stub}} was a bad idea and TRNC- will be worse. Iff we get a -bio template, people will try to add an image anyway, so I'd suggest we give it a neutral one from the start, like say, Zeno of Kition. Normally, I wouldn't be in doubt as to an upmerged -footy template, but there is the image issue as these templates normally use both a football and a flag. Iff we make one of these, just sticking with the football would probably be the best course. Btw, if / when we have enough material, the category names should be Cat:Cypriot people stubs and Cat:Cypriot football biography stubs Valentinian T / C 12:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't know. Cyprus is recognized by UEFA and FIFA so taking the flag out of the image sounds a little silly. Arguments can be made that since the TRNC is not FIFA recognized that they can't be added. I mean every thing else related to UEFA competitions uses the Cypriot flag, why can't the players? NYC2TLV 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
            • You're right that UEFA, FIFA, and everybody else except Turkey and the OIC only recognize the Rep. of Cyprus. I don't love the situation I proposed above, believe me, I just don't like edit wars. Do we have any material at all about Turkish-Cypriot footballers? In other words; how big is the actual problem? There's got to be football clubs in North Nicosia, Famagusta and Kyrenia, but of course, if the players can't play in any major tournament, their notability might be a bit thin. Valentinian T / C 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
            • As I wrote earlier, a hand count revealed around 67 bio stubs in Cyprus-stub. I suggest we use the official flag of the Republic of Cyprus (the vast majority of TC's want to be united, anyway) and include both the TRNC and the RC under it, as well as the diaspora (where I am guessing most notable TRNC soccer players are)--Thomas.macmillan 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I very strongly advise that the flag not be used. You might want to have a read of Template talk:Cyprus-stub, to start with, and I can point to a quite a number of other talk pages where that particular battle raged. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{NE-England-School}} & Category:North East England school stubs

There are stub categories for regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber ({{Yorkshire-school-stub}}) but not for schools in the North East region.

Ideal articles:

Your thoughts? Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In theory this is definitely a good plan; I can't confirm whether it'll hit the threshold of 60, but it seems fairly likely (there is (or was) 13 UK-school stubs in the T&W cat, and it's diminishing returns from there, but undercatting is obviously at work). I'd suggest upmerged templates from {{Durham-school-stub}}, {{TyneandWear-school-stub}}, {{Northumberland-school-stub}}, etc, since those are how the permcats are organised, and more meaningful divisions than the regions in many respects. (Upmerged to the parent if the proposed category doesn't pass threshold, to the NE cat if it does.) Alai 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes to the category and upmerged templates, but I'm not that sure that we need an actual {{NE-England-school-stub}} (lower case "s", please!) though - we could just use the individual upmerged county templates. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yep. Sounds good. However, other stubs follow the format of regions like {{Yorkshire-school-stub}}. Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    What the other regions do as a rule is to "templatise" by (ceremonial) county, upmerged to the regional cat. (I'd tend to agree with Grutness that regional templates are largely redundant, since it's fairly tricky for a school to be in two counties at once.) Yorkshire isn't a modern ceremonial county, granted, by it does correspond to a permcat (Cat:schools in Yorkshire), and conveniently avoids having to use templates like {{NorthYorkshire-school-stub}}, {{WestYorkshire-school-stub}} {{SouthYorkshire-school-stub}} {{EastRidingofYorkshire-school-stub}}. But it's not synonymous with the region (which also includes North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire), so I don't see it as a precedent for having a regional template instead of county ones (and not much of a case for having it as well). Alai 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    A problem is many areas of North East England fall within the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire. The category this uses is an official region of England.
    But it isn't how the permcats are organised, but rather by ceremonial county and unitary authority, which are just as "official", and considerably more significant. And in any event, additional per-UA upmerged templates such as {{Stockton-school-stub}} will take care of the strangely-regioned cases. Alai 19:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Very well. I doubt many articles would fall under UA templates. Computerjoe's talk 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2000s singles subtypes

Now over 800, these look pretty safe bets:

  • Cat:2000s rock single stubs
  • Cat:2000s pop single stubs

I won't try to give counts; not only is the data I have now about six weeks old, there's also much undercatting (the musicistas don't seem to be much into genre cats, so instead these languish until they get a "by artist" cat (which is then genre-ised in turn), which can take some time... Alai 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support.Goldenrowley 15:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of SouthAfrica-geo-stub

I am proposing splitting the whole of Cat:South Africa geography stubs (presently around 850) into the provinces, Western Cape, Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal etc. I haven't done a hand count for all of them, but with the number so large, I forsee all meeting the recommended limits with most exceeding by far.--Thomas.macmillan 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Isn't that 650? You're probably right, but for the record, here's the permcat-based counts from the last dump:
    • KwaZulu-Natal_Province | 108 |
    • Western_Cape_Province | 86 |
    • Free_State_Province | 73 |
    • Gauteng_Province | 53 |
    • Mpumalanga_Province | 44 |
    • North_West_Province | 38 |
    • Limpopo_Province | 27 |
    • Eastern_Cape_Province | 20 |
    • Northern_Cape_Province | 18 |
  • That's something like 2/3 catting, so I'd guess only the bottom three are at all likely to need upmerging, and hence I'll support the first six on spec. Alai 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, with upmerging for the last three. Suggest names of {{KwaZuluNatal-geo-stub}}, {{WesternCape-geo-stub}} etc, with {{NorthWestZA-geo-stub}} for the one ambiguous one. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My mistake, I counted one page too many! There are approximately 180 more geo-stubs in the category now than during the last dump though. Amend proposal to support Alai and Grutness.--Thomas.macmillan 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I should have said either 2/3 catting, or 2/3 articles-that-actually-existed then, or a combination of the two. It's possible there will be a fresh db dump Any Day Now(TM), in which event I'll give updated counts. Alai 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What image should we use for the templates? Are there outlines of the provinces or any other interesting images for South Africa beyond the flag? Also, I am not sure of the formatting for these, so if someone could start them, I'd happily populate them.--Thomas.macmillan 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] baseball pitcher subcats

To un-upmerge the templates {{1960s-baseball-pitcher-stub}} and {{1970s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}, which seem to be well-populated now. But, without the WPJ messages, please! Alai 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose changing template body, need wider consensus of removing mention of WPJ from all similar templates. Support de-upmerging alone. Monni 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't actually convassing opinion on that, just complaining in passing. It's been discussed before, and I'm fairly sure the consensus was to get rid of them. (I've been getting rid of them as I come across them, personally.) Come to that, it's rather implied by WP:STUB and WP:ASR. Alai 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support but are the un-upmerged categories going to be a subcat of Cat:Pre-1980 baseball pitcher stubs or moved out to Cat:Baseball pitcher stubs and the first category renamed Cat:Pre-1960 baseball pitcher stubs (my preferrred option)
That latter would make more sense to me. Alai 19:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Hawaii road stub}}/Cat:Hawaii road stubs

I'm been creating a couple of new Hawaiian roads as of late and I'm in the process of creating some more. Unfortunately, there's isn't any stub for Hawaii roads and I've been putting them under the US road stubs. I'm considering creating a Wikiproject for Hawaii roads to get people involved with the creation and formation of roads in the state of Hawaii so this is the first step to get the process going. If you need a image stub for the Hawaii road stub, ask TwinsMetsFan for assistance. Spongefan 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please create the template at {{Hawaii-road-stub}}, per the stub naming conventions. Are there 60 of these at present? If not, upmerging to a regional category would be better for the time being would be better than a separate category. Otherwise, sounds sensible enough. Alai 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{electronic-band-stub}} / Cat:Electronic musical group stubs + {{Germany-electronic-band-stub}}

About 150 stubs (~600 stubs including children) according to StubSense, with 2 existing child stubs. Category name sounds weird, but that's what the child stubs already use. With my usual self-oppose I suggest upmerged template for Germany (about 40 stubs) just to make sure I can speedy it later if it gets the remaining stubs. If I would care about speedy proposals (usually I just create them out-of-procedure), I would use it in this case. Monni 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juggling

I'd like to propose a category of juggling related stubs. Articles that could be tagged with it include Jason Garfield, World Juggling Federation, Thomas Dietz, Anthony Gatto, Luke Burrage, Ben Beever, Albert Lucas, Flash (juggling), Chops (juggling), Columns (juggling), Box (juggling), Reverse cascade. It would be especially nice to see this category as there is currently a controversy as to whether juggling is more entertainment or sport (or recreation etc), while all stubs could be neatly sorted into one juggling category. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly sensibly scoped, but I'd wonder if there's enough existing stubs for a Cat:juggling stubs. I'd certainly have no objection to an upmerged {{juggling-stub}} template... but per your comment, I'm not sure where I'd suggest upmerging it to! (BTW, is there a wikiproject?) Alai 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd upmerge it into sports stubs. There's no wikiproject as yet. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on the current permcat parentage, I'd say it belongs under Cat:Culture stubs. Despite ESPN's efforts to turn everything into a competitive sport, juggling is more popularly considered to be entertainment or recreation than sport. However, if there are enough stubs to warrant a separate stub category, I wouldn't oppose adding Cat:Sports stubs as a second parent of Cat:Juggling stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
ISTR we at one time had a circus-skills-stub or similar, which at the time was deleted as not having enough stubs. perhaps it would be useful to reinstate it for juggling, acrobatics, and other similar performing arts? Grutness...wha? 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you're asking me: I'd be fine with any stub template that contains the word juggling, really. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
According to stubsense, that would seem to just about be viable (as an upmerger target for the juggling stub template or otherwise). Alai 06:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{frog-stub}}/Cat:Frog stubs

Among the first 30 Amphibian stubs, found only a few which aren't about frogs (including toads, which are classified as part of Order Anura. Eli Falk 13:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Works for me; somewhat surprised there's no immediate signs of this having been proposed before. Alai 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Support the template but oppose the category, about 90% of all living amphibian species are in order Anura (frogs and toads) and there only about 500 stubs right now, so adding another stub category doesn't look like it would accomplish much. Suggest any potential category splitting at this time be done by family, judging simply by numbers of genera and results from Stub Sense, looks like the families Bufonidae (true toads), Hylidae (tree frogs), Leptodactylidae (tropical frogs), Microhylidae (narrow-mouth frogs), and Ranidae (true frogs) look to be populous enough to at least warrant a stub template and maybe a category depending on much they are understubbed and/or undercategorized. So to recap, start with templates {{Anura-stub}} (with redirect {{frog-stub}} or vice versa) and {{Bufonidae-stub}}, {{Hylidae-stub}}, {{Leptodactylidae-stub}}, {{Microhylidae-stub}}, and {{Ranidae-stub}} Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, that was the gist of the previous discussion on this topic. But if we're going to split out frog families at some point, an order-level parent category would then be only logical. Crunching the numbers from the Feb. db dump by permcat, for all the amphibians:
      • Come to that, if the frogs are going to be re-templatised by family, it would seem fairly reasonable to have the frog family templates feed into a Cat:frog stubs, but to skip the generic {{frog-stub}} template. Alai 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Note, the tree frog and toad permcats do not correspond to a single family. The old-world tree frogs have been split out to a separate family from the rest but that category contains both and the toad category by its own admission contains not just the Bufonidae, but also other frog species commonly called toads. The differences probably aren't enough to warrant not creating templates, but they do mean that I'm strongly opposed to creating a {{toad-stub}} and opposed (but not strongly or weakly, just opposed) to creating a {{treefrog-stub}}, even as redirects. I don't mind {{frog-stub}} since Anura itself is a redirect to Frog and there are several small families that will never have even 30+ stubs as there are fewer than 30 species in them. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geology-stub split

Apologies in advance for the haziness of this proposal - I'm bringing it here for debate in the hopes that someone here can come up with something more solid.

I notice a lot of stubs which are both geology and geography - specifically, stubs for specific geological sites, such as Victoria Island structure. At the moment, a lot of them are double-stubbed with X-geo-stub and geology-stub, but I'm wondering whether a specific {{geology-site-stub}} might be better than the geology-one for the latter. That way, if there are enough of them, they could later be split on a by-continent or by-country basis. I have not done a count up of these, but I'd be very surprised if there aren't several dozen, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Doesn't immediately look like a permcat-follower, unless it can be mapped onto Cat:geomorphology in some manner. For which I think we've already discussed a stub type... Alai 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's Cat:Regional geology and all its "..by country" subtypes. Grutness...wha? 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, that works for me. Ideally we'd echo that language in the stubcat name, at least (the template I'm fairly easy on). Alai 04:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of Egyptian people stubs

Templates and categories for: {{Egypt-politician-stub}}, {{Egypt-writer-stub}} (Haven't done a precise hand count, but definitely have enough). Just templates for: {{Egypt-footy-bio-stub}} and {{Egypt-mil-bio-stub}} (same as above but definitely do not have enough yet to justify a category)--Thomas.macmillan 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backpacking-stub

I would like to propose a generall stub type backpacking-stub for use with WikiProject Backpacking that will hold and allow us to sort and categorize all stub-class articles in WP Backpacking. There are hundreds of stub articles that fit into this category, including:

  • The main problem as I see it is that either this or trail stubs is viable, having both seems a bit counterproductive - as you say, most of one would be in the other. Perhaps widening the scope of trail-stub to cover both trail walking and backpacking would be a better option than a completely new stub type? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the cross-cutting across {{trail-stub}}, {{climbing-stub}}, and {{leisure-company-stub}} is a problem. That last, at just over 200 stubs is not in need of a split sizewise, but I could support an {{recreation-company-stub}} to make the companies there more likely to be relevant to WikiProject Backpacking. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggest the use of {{hiking-stub}} as more comprehensive to both wilderness trails and backpacking. Leisure company is more like travel and leisure. Hiking and backpacking are more like sports. Goldenrowley 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Combining the suggestions above, I'd like to make the following amended proposal:

  1. create {{hiking-stub}} and {cl|Hiking stubs}}
  2. upmerge {{trail-stub}} into that and delete Cat:Trail stubs - at least for the time being.

That way, we don't have a nearly empty Hiking stubs category. if it looks like there are sufficient stubs on hiking that aren't about trails, per se, then we can always re-create that stub's own category later. The backpacking WikiProject would then have three different stub types and two categories (the other being the {{climbing-stub}}/Cat:climbing stubs combo) to look for articles in. We can also have a look at splitting leisure-comany-stub at a later date, if it grows some. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you all. I was hoping to create a backpacking stub that could cover all sorts of relavent articles without the need for lots of different tags. This would provide an easy way for users to access many types of backpacking/hiking related stub data and really help the project out. If this remains the generall view, I will create it and perform the merger after the designated time (unless someone with more knowledge that will do a better job would like to do it). Leif902 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support both hiking stub and category. Goldenrowley 03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As there seems to be support, I have gone ahead and created {{hiking-stub}} and Category:Hiking Stubs. If you want me to do more, ex. upmerge trail-stub, etc. you can contact me on my talk page as I probably won't check back here and am no longer watching the page. Please help improve it if you can. - Leif902 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if I violated a time limit, I wasn't sure if there was one (is there one?).

I've moved this to Cat:hiking stubs, per usual naming conventions, and adjusted the categorisation somewhat. Time is supposed to be five days, but if this is populable to 60 (or perhaps even 30, given the WPJ), I don't see any problems. Alai 04:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:The Gambia geography stubs

And another country reaches the 60+ mark - 74 stubs, in fact. This one has had a template for a while, and can now be de-upmerged. And yes, since the name of the country is officially The Gambia... Grutness...wha? 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support of course. Just wait until you see the number of geo-stub splits that I can propose in a week woo hoo!Aelfthrytha 12:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support for speedying I don't see a reason to wait for a category in this situation.--Thomas.macmillan 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinball stub

There's more than 100 good stub articles between titles, manufacturers, individuals and other related articles. However the stub types currently associated with these articles are various uncoordinated types of video game categorizations. Pinball really is its own separate beast, and there is already a WikiProject Pinball that is growing slowly but steadily. Propose a pinball-stub category. Any objections? Fractalchez 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's 100 articles, both stub and non-stub in that category. StubSense reports 43 pinball-related stubs of which 16 stubs are for pinball computer/video games. In theory, everything pinball related should already have {{arcade-stub}}, since pinball games is a subset of arcade games. I'll admit that it would be nice to have a clearer separation between video arcade games and (electro-)mechanical arcade games, but given the relative numbers of articles and stubs, I think it might be more useful to create {{arcade-videogame-stub}} as part of a splitting off of the video arcade games so as to avoid having pinball and other gaming machines with mechanical action (such as coin-op pool tables) fall unintentionally into the video game hierarchy. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it, that seems just fine. My main concern was just getting some semblence of standarization, since pinball machines are one of those things that don't fit all that well into other categories. But "arcade" covers it well. I may want to revisit this if/when the pinball pages actually grow to require it, but this well satisfies my current concerns. Much thanks. Fractalchez 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old business

Everything from here on down has passed the five day proposal period. Unless discussion to determine consensus is actively on-going, proposals may be acted upon, to be created, or noted as not approved. Move this marker up as time passes.

[edit] Illinois-geo sub-types

Parent is now oversized (Midwest states must be in season, or something), and these are growing too far to give sensible counts, but I'm pretty sure about the first three, at least. On double-stubbing alone the Chicago types is viable. The other four all all based on combined statistical areas, truncating as necessary to state boundaries (fairly drastically in the case of St. Louis, obviously. Alai 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That last one might be better named Cat:Metro-East geography stubs since apparently Metro-East is the local name for that area, variously with and without the hyphen, tho the wiki article uses it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. It seems a bit variable as regards county membership, as well as hyphenation, but nothing a little explicit scoping statement won't prolong^Wcure. Alai 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of {{Indonesia-geo-stub}}

{{Jakarta-geo-stub}} plus cat. would take 125 articles with it out of this growing category which is nearing 800. Other counts available on request by province, island, etc. Aelfthrytha 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While not exactly official regions, how would a split of Indonesia into Sumatra, Java, Lesser Sunda, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Moluccas, and Irian Barat work out stub wise? (leaving aside for the moment the thorny political issue of what exactly to call Western New Guinea) That would be a complete split and likely doable a lot sooner and easier than a provincial level split. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A reasonable idea - I've been wondering whether a Sumatra, Java, or Kalimatan split might improve this category a bit. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Counts: Sumatra, 150; Java, 155; Nusa Tenggara, 81; Kalimantan, 40; Sulawesi, 49; Maluku Islands, 30; W. New Guinea (Papua & W. Irian Jaya), 27. I also have sub-counts by province for every single one - West Java has 53, East Nusa Tenggara has 50, no others cleared 40. Aelfthrytha 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd think cats per (top three at present) island/region, and templates per province would be the ideal "forward-looking" solutuion. Alai 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: Java and Jakarta still need separate templates and cats - Jakarta alone has 125, Java excluding Jakarta has 155. Agree with Alai, templates per province. Aelfthrytha 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pesticide stub

More than 60 stubs for this category - see here and here using CatScan. Coming under agriculture-stub and possibly chem-stub. Jeodesic 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh history stub

Bangladesh has around 2,000 years of documented history, and new pre-historical evidences has started to emerge. There also is long history that features diverse people like the Portuguese, English, Armenians, Rakkhaines, Manipuris, Arabs, Greeks, Persians and Afghans which may not feature on their respective homelands' history. Especially important is the fact that since independence Bangladesh had a very turbulent history that concerns mostly just Bangladesh and Bangladeshis. To coordinate all that now there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Bangladesh, though it is yet really take flight. I propose for a Bangladesh history stub, like is a {{Bangladesh-geo-stub}}, a {{Bangladesh-bio-stub}}, a {{Bangladesh-edu-stub}}, and a {{Bangladesh-org-stub}}. Aditya Kabir 03:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • How many (existing) stubs within the scope of this proposed type? Alai 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • NONE. The nearest are {{Bangladesh-bio-stub}}, {{SAsia-hist-stub}}, {{India-hist-stub}} and {{india-royal-stub}}. Nowhere near good enough. Aditya Kabir 19:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I mean how many stub articles. Clearly there are applicable stub types, i.e. Cat:Bangladesh stubs and Cat:South Asian history stubs, and any {{Bangladesh-hist-stub}} should be upmerged there if it doesn't meet the size guidelines in WP:STUB. Alai 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, there already is one. Why not use that on more than one article (ideally, 60), and then get back to us? Alai 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Upmerged template was created by me a while ago because it was on the to-do list. Currently it's part of SAsia-hist-stub and Bangladesh-stub. Aelfthrytha 01:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think I got what I was looking for. Thanks Aelfthrytha for the template. Sorry, Alai, that I got your question wrong. The answer would be 68 stubs at the moment, and growing really fast (I may have overlooked a few). Even more sorry for not knowing there was one Bangladesh history stub cat already. But, it was not referred to on any page at all. Aditya Kabir 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Not a problem. On the basis of there being > 60, support "un-upmerging" of template to Cat:Bangladesh history stubs. Alai 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of Cricket-bio-stubs

2 countries have passed the 60 article guideline and so I would like to propose:
{{Ireland-cricket-bio-stub}} / Cat:Irish cricket biography stubs (73 articles)
{{Canada-cricket-bio-stub}} / Cat:Canadian cricket biography stubs (63 articles)
Waacstats 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopia-athletics-bio-stub

Upmerged template has 63 articles propose Cat:Ethiopian athletics biography stubs
Waacstats 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China-footy-bio-stub

There are 65 articles tagged with {{China-sport-bio-stub}} and {{Asia-footy-bio-stub}} so I propose {{China-footy-bio-stub}} / Cat:Chinese football biography stubs.
Waacstats 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UAE-bio-stub

While sorting through some of the sports categories i have noticed that some countries have enough articles for bio-stub templates which do not currently exist. The first of these is UAE. By my calculation there are 29 footballers, 19 cricketers, 7 other sportsmen and a quick look in politicians shows atleast 6. Making a category of over 60 people. So I propose {{UAE-bio-stub}} and Cat:United Arab Emirati people stubs
Waacstats 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Tentative support - I'm not so sure about the category name - all the other UAE stubs are United Arab Emirates stubs. Can we get some more comments on that? Aelfthrytha 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinidad-(sport-)bio-stub

Just searching through athletics and football categories gave me over 60 articles relating to trinidad sportsmen & women. This would suggest a {{Trinidad-sport-bio-stub}} and related category however we don't yet have a {{Trinidad-bio-stub}} and i feel going straight to a sport-bio-stub maybe jumping the gun and that the bio-stub maybe of more general use
Waacstats 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

While neither Cat:Caribbean people stubs, Cat:West Indian cricket biography stubs, Cat:Caribbean boxing biography stubs, Cat:Central America and Caribbean athletics biography stubs, nor Cat:Trinidad and Tobago stubs is even close to being overlarge, I'd prefer creating {{Trinidad-bio-stub}} and {{Caribbean-sport-bio-stub}} first or at least at the same time as {{Trinidad-sport-bio-stub}}, simply to avoid the problem of having stubs skipping generations. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That is similar to what i meant but I don't know about {{Caribbean-sport-bio-stub}} as it would possibly give a national template a specific sport template and a third caribbean-sport template all on one page, not pretty. Waacstats 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bermudian sportspeople

We have 55 articles relating to Bermudian cricketers throw in a further 8 people from athletics and football and we have a {{Bermuda-sport-bio-stub}} category however we don't currently have a {{Bermuda-stub}} let alone a bio-stub as articles relating to Bermuda are currently tagged with {{UK-Atlantic-stub}}so how do we split this
{{Bermuda-stub}} / Cat:Bermuda stubs
{{Bermuda-bio-stub}} / Cat:Bermudian people stubs
{{Bermuda-sport-bio-stub}} / Cat:Bermudian sportspeople stubs
{{Bermuda-cricket-bio-stub}} / Cat:Bermudian cricket biography stubs
{{UK-Atlantic-bio-stub}} / Template:British Atlantic territory biography stubs
or some other way. Personally I feel that {{Bermuda-bio-stub}} would be the way to go as being of most use with an upmerged {{Bermuda-cricket-bio-stub}}
Waacstats 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd go for both a Bermuda-bio-stub and a UK-Atlantic-bio-stub, even if the latter is upmerged. There are a lot of articles about Bermudian cricketers, it's true, but there are also quite a number of other articles about Bermudians (including, IIRC, one about a guy who is a local eccentric who goes out to wave to the traffic every day!). A UK-Atlantic-bio-stub would cater for the several Falklanders and St. Helenans (Helenians?) that no doubt have articles, and could either become a parent stubcat for the bermuda one, or simply be upmerged into the main UK_Atlantic cat. An upmerged Bermuda-cricket-bio-stub might also be prudent, since it will no doubt increase past threshold pretty soon (see also the Ireland and Canada noms above). I must admit that the "UK Atlantic" stubcats are a bit of a kludge anyway - there is no permcat parent, but there is also no easy way to separate these stubs out. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for Bermuda-stub, bio-stub, and templates for the rest.--Thomas.macmillan 18:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Can i just point out I wasn't proposing all just listing some possible splits. Waacstats 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethno/native/indigenous peoples stubs

As per discussion at WP:SFD, it's probably time to complete the stub types for ethnic groups, or at least native or indigenous peoples. we have some continent-level splits, but are missing several. Unfortunately, naming is not uniform, which makes for a problem. We currently have, at the continental level, {{Africa-ethno-group-stub}}, {{Asia-ethno-group-stub}}, and {{Euro-ethno-group-stub}}, but also {{NorthAm-native-stub}} and {{IndigenousAustralia-stub}}.

It would be useful to have stub templates for South America (SouthAm-x), Central America (CentralAm-x), the Caribbean, and Oceania. Chances are, all except the South American one would be upmrged, with a fully-fledged stub with category for South America. The question is, though, what should they be named? My personal preference is for all of them to be X-ethno-group-stubs (and with consideration made for changing the name of the two which don't fit this scheme), but alternative opinions are welcome - as is some indication of potential numbers of stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Template:SouthAm-Native-stub and Cat:Indigenous_peoples_of_South_America_stubs to mirror North American native stubbing. I think Central American is covered by Pre-Columbian, Mayan and Aztec. I think Carribean may be fine with just nbaming them Caribeans-stub. I'd opt out of "ethnic group" in America, as America has ethnic stock from all over Europe and Africa and Asia, the native people are disambiguated by using the words Native or indigenous or first nations in America. A Native American Wikiproject exists, so you can probably allow this as within scope of their Wikiproject with just 30-60 articles. I don't know enough on Oceania but it seems you can cover it with naming the ethnicities such as Polynesian. Goldenrowley 03:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I did a little further research, we have Central America covered with {{Mesoamerica-stub}} and South American with {{pre-columbian-stub}} by its category. However I really like SouthAm-Native-stub for equality with NorthAm-Native-stub and because it allows for the people to have lived past the Pre-columbian time marker. Goldenrowley 09:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum While this is receiving attention, could I add a rider template/stub for Uncontacted peoples? While not a geographic distinction, they truly are a special class of indigenous, distinct from incorporated groups. Most are in South America but some are in the West Indies, North America, and Russia.Yeago 17:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
On Yeago's addendum, uncontacted peoples, I checked it out and there are perhaps 10 of stub length there, the rest is a list of potential but unwritten articles. I have more research, the permcat for Americas Indigenous people is Cat:Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas if we just follow the perm cats we'd make the following for American indigenous people:
  • {{SouthAm-native-stub}} / Cat:Indigenous_peoples_of_South_America_stubs 50-100 at this time.
  • {{CentralAm-native-stub}} / Cat:Indigenous_peoples_of_Central_America_stubs
  • {{Caribbean-native-stub}} / Cat:Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Caribbean_stubs. However this may stub just 3 articles or so. Instead I suggest the ethnic group words are more useful: {{Caribbean-ethnic-group-stub}} / Cat:Caribbean-ethnic-group-stubs (noting the rational, few tribes in Caribbean on the other hand it has many diverse and distinct ethnic groups.)Goldenrowley 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Is that a yay or nay for uncontacted peoples? I believe there's lots of room for growth, as Brazil's estimates of the number of uncontacted tribes have near doubled over the past 5 years. However, information is slow to accumulate as researchers must be very careful in their methods. Human cultures that did not collide with the global Europeal expansion over the past 500 years are incredibly preserved examples of paleolithic man. I only suggest this because I feel that merely categorizing them as 'indigenous' is not a very useful distinction (many 'indigenous' are millionare casino owners >=).Yeago 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My personal opinion would be nay for uncontacted people, we have barely enough for South and Central America as it is, and it would carve out and make the count even smaller. Goldenrowley 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Well for now maybe I can just make a category.Yeago 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The more I study it, Grutness, Ethnic is a valid category of each continent, while Native/Indigenous would be considered one subcategory of ethnic, not in the same tier but one subcategory of "American" or "Oceania" if you will - someone was always natives, other ethnicities moved in later (all around the World). So I'd think native and ethnic stubs are NOT exactly the same thing, so could coexist provided there are enough articles. In America there are lots of Natives to write about since they had lots of tribes and nations displaced. Goldenrowley 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's partly my point. The European and Asian categories are for ethnic groups, in that this is more inclusive, and can include things like "British Australians", which would otherwise have nowhere to go. Similarly, if these are only "native" North American, Caribbean, etc, then there is nowhere for groups like Acadians, Argentinian Welsh, etc to be put. Couple that with the problem in oceania that no-one is native in the strictest sense. In New Zealand, for instance, the Maori only arrived here about 900 years ago, and are only "native" by dint of being the first arrivals. And if you use that as your criterion, then you run into all sorts of other problems (Vikings become native Icelanders, for instance). For those two reasons, ethnic group is, IMO, a more useful way of splitting things than native peoples. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and yet "natives' are not the same as ethnic, they are a sub-category of Ethnic -- in America there are over 1000's of tribes and nations and we have enough for stub of their own, nestled under ethnic as one subcategory (as in we have enough to subcategorize it already on the tribal levels).Goldenrowley 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just in case I was not clear I think we can do both, its all compatible. Its not an either/or situation, I was looking at all the ethnic american stubs, then picturing it world wide. Goldenrowley 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various airport sub-types

Asian airports are oversized, Europeans and US are getting that way. I'm going to suggest:

  • Cat:Texas airport stubs
  • Cat:North Carolina airport stubs
  • Cat:Nevada airport stubs
  • Cat:Kansas airport stubs
  • Cat:Arizona airport stubs

I'm not giving alleged counts, as the only numbers I have are manifestly very out of date. I first noticed the enormous number of China-geo-stubs that are airports, but that isn't reflected in the last db dump. (But I'll gaze in wonder that the Russians feature with at least 100 in both Euro- and Asia- types...) Instead, I'll just float these now, hope a db dump happens along before we're all that much older, and if not, just create upmerged stub templates and thereafter see what happens, until these pass threshold. Anyone turning up to say "why don't we completely ignore that the permcat is Cat:Airports in the People's Republic of China, and create it with some other scope entirely?", I wonder? Alai 05:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't give it the template {{China-airport-stub}}, I won't complain about the proposed stub category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest {{PRC-airport-stub}}. Alai 06:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of {{Iran-geo-stub}}

This one is getting to about 800. Splitting {{Tehran-geo-stub}} would take off 84. I propose the template plus the separate category. Aelfthrytha 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Support I'd be surprised since there are only 30 provinces if there aren't some others large enough to warrant at least upmerged templates as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If we want to do upmerged, the best candidates in descending order would be: Esfahan (55), Fars (46), Khuzestan (39), West Azerbaijan (34), Mazandaran (33), Razavi Khorasan (32), and East Azerbaijan (31). If you'd like any other counts, let me know. I'm open to amending the proposal and have full and current count data as of this morning. Aelfthrytha 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Aelf; I'm not use on this one, since there's no permcatting of any use here. Apparently Iran used to have a smaller number of provinces, and the modern provinces are essentially split/promoted sub-units of those. Would there be any merit in splitting into those (maybe just using the modern names, hyphenated), with upmerged templates? Alai 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I tried to talk to Wikiproject Iran about this, but the people who replied to me simply insisted that the current provinces are the only subdivision of the country. They claimed there were no regions, etc that we could use as intermediate levels between national / provinical boundaries. Go figure. Aelfthrytha 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I reserve the right to ignore 'em, at least in case of provinces with two-part names, where the second parts are all identical, and the first parts are "East", "West", "North", "South", etc. :) Alai 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{SouthAm-musician-stub}} and {{SouthAm-singer-stub}} / Cat:South American musician stubs

Don't seem to exist, would be catchall category for South American musicians that don't have more specific stubs, if there is not enough for own category for both, would suggest upmerging -singer-stub so atleast musician stub would be viable. Monni 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Works for me. Alai 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{asia-band-stub}} / Cat:Asian musical group stubs

European catchall stub was proposed elsewhere, so I suggest making one for Asia too. There is already {{asia-singer-stub}} and {{asia-musician-stub}}, so this one makes it step further. Monni 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, seems very logical. Alai 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support from me, too. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:European musician stubs

Musicians oversized, no country seems to hit threshold, lumping by continent would give 93. (In this case, there's even a permcat: Cat:European musicians.) Africa is bubbling under in the 40s. Alai 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • strong support with usual caveat of making upmerged templates for biggest countries that don't have own category yet. Monni 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleontology sub-types

I think these were mooted in passing on a previous occasion, but for clarity I'll air them here again. (Parent oversized again.) Alai 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. In fact, I think I may have suggested it last time. The reptile one will allow a natural parent for dinosaur-stub a(and hopefully stop people adding that template to pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs). May have some problem with synapsids, though, since there are two schools of thought as to whether they were "real" reptiles or a separate reptile-like group. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals, February 2007

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

[edit] Romanian geo subcats

Parent is nearly 800, these seem to be the leading first-order subdivisions. Alai 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support.Aelfthrytha
  • Support - I take it the template will simply be Botosani-geo-stub, without the diacritical? Grutness...wha? 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Ohio school stubs subcats

Oversized. We could split this up either geographically, perhaps on the same lines as we did the Cat:Ohio geography stubs, or else into primary and secondary sectors. Alai 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary and secondary is unlikely to be a clean split given the existance of middle schools. A geographic based split is likelier to be clean. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As it transpires, the numbers in the middle school and elementary school cats are teeny, so the geographical way definitely seems sensible. I've started with the 'Greater Columbus' CSA. Alai 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:North West England school stubs

UK-schools are oversized Yet Again, this region seems to be next up. Five counties to be upmerged, totalling 85 between them at time of last db dump. Alai 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Guinean people stubs

Just did a hand count and found approximately 60; template already created per discussion earlier in month--Thomas.macmillan 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{country-food-stub}} versus {{country-cuisine-stub}}

These have been multiplying in the food-stub category to help sort it out. I'm in favor of it, but they ought be standardised - food-stub or cusine-stub, not both. Indian & Malaysian (an issue of its own, as the stub is Malay-food-stub) have food; Mexican, Turkish, and Spanish have cuisine. Additionally, a few of these do not seem to have an official proposal. Anyway, I propose standardizing to food stub because it's easier to type. Thus, I am proposing changing the other three and using food for any further splits of this cat. Aelfthrytha 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We seem to have acquired a plain {{cuisine-stub}} at some point - early on, too - which is probably the source of the problem. Some rationalisation of cuisine, food and drink needs to be done. Perhaps a better solution would be to keep cuisine-stub and making the food-stub and drink-stub subtypes of it, and to have national-cuisine-stub types as the split by a second dimension (meaning changing the Indian and Malay ones, allowing us to tidy up the Malay/Malaysia(n) problem at the same time - we should try to fix on whether it's country-cuisine-stub or nationality-cuisine-stub, too). These can later, if necessary, have national-food-stub and national-drink-stub subtypes if numbers warrant it. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Another problem here is similar to that of splitting {{struct-stub}} - some are split by geographic region and some are split by type (dessert, drink, etc). That also needs to be rationalized. Aelfthrytha 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] {{powerstation-stub}} / Cat:Power station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create

See {{Australia-powerstation-stub}} below and already existing {{US-powerstation-stub}}... Would cover all other countries and have these as subcategories. Monni 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Biggest countries that this "new parent" would cover would be Germany, UK and Argentina. I don't have exact counts yet, because there seems to be small overlap in StubSense with proposed {{pipeline-stub}}. Monni 17:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If I counted correctly, for other countries there are 7 German power station stubs, 4 stubs for Poland and Czech Republic, 3 for the UK, 2 for Malaysia and 1 for Ghana, the Netherlands, Argentina, Russia, Moldova, South Africa, Taiwan, Bulgaria, Laos, Estonia, Slovakia, Croatia and Spain. I don't think there will be any overlap with proposed {{pipeline-stub}}. If we need split the {{energy-stub}} more, one possibility is to have also separate {{oilfield-stub}} for oil and gas fields. Beagel 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I only implied there was overlap in StubSense results. Usually that is because it scans too deep in results and ends up winding back to parent categories. I can support {{oilfield-stub}} as long as it is upmerged only... StubSense only reports 49 potentials, but on the other hand, StubSense is hardly ever correct in counts. Monni 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, for the avoidance of rootless-tree confusion. Alai 19:08, 26 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{pipeline-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create pipeline-stub + category, electric-power-stub + category, upmerge powerline-stub to Electric power stubs

{{energy-stub}} consists right now approximately 450 entries of which 98 are oil or gas pipelines. I propose to create {{pipeline-stub}} as a subcategory of {{energy-stub}}.Beagel 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • support We need to split {{energy-stub}} anyways. Monni 15:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • support but I'd like to see it expanded to include powerlines. there are several stubs to do with electricity cables (at least one in NZ, a couple in Egypt and one in Greenland, IIRC). It would be good if these could somehow be grouped in with the pipelines (perhaps make a separate powerline-stub and feed them both into the national grid a Cat:Pipeline and powerline stubs?) Grutness...wha? 01:53, 26 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{Academic-society-stub}}

There are a lot of organisations that are academic societies that are currently being tagged as {{edu-org-stub}}. Academic societies are more usually research organisations, and I would like to separate the education and research orgs. An alternative would be to create {{research-org-stub}}. John Vandenberg 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We have a Cat:learned societies... which is a grandchild of Cat:educational organizations, mind you. We don't seem to have the equivalent of Cat:research organizations. If there's 60, I'd support something with the former scope. (Otherwise, feel free to rejig the permcats, and if it flies, we can revisit.) Alai 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of {{election-stub}}

This category has now reached five pages, and has four viable children at the moment. They all meet the threshold of 65 stubs, so I propose creating templates and categories for {{US-election-stub}}, {{Asia-election-stub}}, {{Euro-election-stub}}, and {{Africa-election-stub}}. South America is still under 20 stubs, as are Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada, so they don't need to be split off yet. That should get it back under control. Aelfthrytha 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are a lot more Canadian ones than that, but they're probably all listed under Canada-poli-stub or Canada-gov-stub. The Canada government wikiproject is a fiercely active one (nearly as busy as this one, IIRC). Grutness...wha? 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Support templates for all, categories for those passing threshold. I agree that Canada probably has significantly more than 65.--Thomas.macmillan 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And seconds after I finished writing above, I found out that a Cat:Canadian election stubs already exists and has over 100 stubs. --Thomas.macmillan 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be undersorted-to, mind you, since I bot-populated it from double-stubbing alone. (And support, btw.) Alai 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would sorting by type of election, such as presidential, parliamentary, gubernational, local, be useful? - Privacy 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably far less so than sorting by country. firstly, an editor is far more likely to know about the entire set-up in one country than to know similar levels of election in many countries, and secondly there are so many different forms of vgovernment that it would become overly fragmented. At least with countries we can divide them fairly easily into continents and subcontinental regions. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Gaming community clan stubs}} / Cat:Gaming community clan stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create

well anyways i posted a artical on me and my frends clan that we made and now its facing certain deletion for not being important enough. but i think there should be a place for me to place my artical about the clan. Its not going to be an extreamly big artical and it would be nice to have this stub ill have the needed number of articals asap Revansrangers 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what this page is for. It isn't a place to save articles which look like they should be deleted - it's a place for proposing new splits of the legitimate articles here. if there are 60 articles on gaming clans that shouldn't be deleted, then we'd consider it, but it's very unlikely you'd find 60, since almost all gaming clans are not notable enough for articles. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. A lot of game stubs already exist, surely one will work for this game. My impression: Role-playing game stubs {{rpg-stub}} is the best fit although you haven't indicated the type of game I'd imagine clans are role playing their parts. Goldenrowley 03:12, 24 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{Haiti-myth-stub}} / Cat:Haitian myth stubs

Surprised a bit by this, but I found 61 with a hand count at Cat:Haiti stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Doesn't surprise me - there are a lot of stubs relating to Vodun/Voodoo out there. In fact it might be better to split out those rather than make it specifically Haiti, since it might have a slightly wider range (including some West African myth stubsones, too). Grutness...wha? 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So perhaps Vodun-stub would be better? That might work. I noticed several of them were not Haiti specific.--Thomas.macmillan 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support how about either a Vodun myth stub category - or - a Caribbean myth stub category. I was mystified how to categorize the Caribbean myths once before... I settled on African but its an odd mix of African and Caribbean. Goldenrowley 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ****Back with the article on Caribbean and to correct my errant spelling. Goldenrowley 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support creation of Vodun-stub. A lot of the god/goddess/spirit stub articles also apply to voodoo as practiced in the southern United States, so they are not specifically Caribbean. Jwillbur 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, IIRC the permcat doesn't use the term Vodun, so if this is what is decided upon, we should try to keep things consistent between permcats and stubcats. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The categories are a bit of a mess, there is Category:Vodou and Category:Vodun which both seem to cover the same thing. The stubby articles in question are mostly categorized under Category:Vodun deities, as sub-cat of Vodun. I don't know enough about the topic to say whether "Vodun" or "Vodou" (or "Voodoo") is the "more correct" term. Jwillbur 03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Workday-Inc.-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create

Workday, Inc. is listed under a Workday consolidated entry, but does not have an entry of its own. ipsque... 15:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure you fully understand what this page is for - it is for the creation of templates and categories to be used by dozens of stubs (preferably 60 or more) - as such a "Workday-inc.-stub" is inapproriate, since there are unlikely to be 60 articles which could use such a template. If an individual stub article on Wirkday, Inc. needs to be added to Wikipedia, all you have to do is write it. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ipsque, you're probably in the wrong place to propose this to us. But you can review steps to creating articles here, as well as review the notability guidelines for the encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article Goldenrowley 19:45, 23 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{Oregon-school-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create

I notice that school stubs exists for various states, but not as yet for Oregon. As I intend to create stubs for schools in my city (and I am sure others on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon would for their Oregon cities, too), I propose the above stub. While such a stub already exists in WikiProject Oregon, it does not as yet appear on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. If accepted, the proposal will thus formalize an existing practice. DocDee 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this one should be an official one anyway :) As to "making it official", it doesn't workexactly like you say, though the wording on the stub type list needs to be changed to explain why this is the way it is. Often, all of the stub templates for a subject (like all 50 state-school stubs) are created but many of hem are upmerged - that is, feed back into larger categories - because there are too few stubs to warrant separate categories. once they reach the threshold number of stubs, usually 60, separate categories are created and they are then added to the stub type list. In the case of Oregon, though, what seems to have happened is that the category was created once the 60-stub level was reached but someone forgot to add it to the stub type list! So yeah, I'd say this one's fine. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 22 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{gender-studies-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create

Further to the recent discussion of {{Gender-stub}} and {{Masc-stub}}. Proposed creation of a new stub to cover gender studies stub article (Category:Gender studies & Category:WikiProject Gender Studies) not covered by {{fem-stub}}.--Cailil 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, per that discussion. Alai 19:22, 26 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{weightlifting-bio-stub}} / Cat:Weightlifting biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create

CeeGee 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit late, having already made them... For those of you who haven't been keeping track at WP:WSS'D, Weightlifting-bio-stub is listed there along with Cat:Weightlifter stubs. Rather than waiting for it to go to SFD, it looks like CeeGee has madfe a new category for it - it still hasn't been decided whether it should be kept though. And now he's created a new Cat:Weightlifting stubs / {{Weightlifting-stub}}. Very, very messy... Grutness...wha? 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep this one... Has potential to have 60 stubs. I guess it's upto admins to clean rest of the mess. Monni 06:05, 22 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Cat:Korea stubs : Template:History of Korea-stub

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

The result of the debate was do not create

Daru of Baekje, Giru of Baekje, Gaeru of Baekje, Saban of Baekje, Chaekgye of Baekje, Bunseo of Baekje, Samguk Yusa, Buyeo languages, Buyeo County, An Hyang, Hugh McKee?, Gongsun Du?, Gaya - Silla Warsm Kdammers 06:30, 20 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{fantasy-story-stub}} / Cat:fantasy short story stubs

Further to the recent "Fantasy novel stub" debate earlier this month and to deliniate a major section of fantasy literature. Currently stories get lumped in {{fantasy-book-stub}} or even in {{fantasy-stub}}. As far as I can tell this should amount to about 100 entries. It would as correspond to the style of category used in {{sf-story-stub}} and have a very similar scope, except for it's own genre. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, although the category name should surely be Cat:fantasy short story stubs, similar to Cat:science fiction short story stubs, given that there's a Cat:fantasy short stories, but no Cat:fantasy stories. Alai 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed in response to Alai - although I notice the sf template does not included "short", presumably to keep is "short" lol. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Très drôle. :) Yes, I don't think it should go in the template name: that would be overkill. Alai 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Asia road stubs: {{Asia-road-stub}} / Category:Malaysia road stubs: {{Malaysia-road-stub}} / {{China-road-stub}}

Propose split from {{road-stub}}. I have found 102 144 pages for the category, listed at User:Swpb/Asia road stubs. Possible seperate templates Propose template and subcat for Malaysia-road stub (49 71 pages) and template only for China-road-stub (26 30 pages). — Swpb talk contribs 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Support and Hong Kong can be moved into it as a subcat. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that as well. — Swpb talk contribs 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd actually proposed this several months ago... seems I didn't, but did mention it's possible usefulness (see here). Support, anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What about the Malaysia and China templates? — Swpb talk contribs 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Asia stub cat and template. Neutral on prospect of separate templates for Malaysia and China, but oppose separate cats for Malaysia and China as of right now. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) all parts of proposal and the child cat suggestion below. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I had no intention of making seperate cats for Malaysia and China, just the templates to make a future split easier. — Swpb talk contribs 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thought, now that I've found 71 pages for Malaysia, I'd like to modify the proposal to include a Malaysia subcat. Sorry for the sloppy revising.
Also, {{China-road-stub}} was apparently already created this morning by Alai as a child of Category:Road stubs and Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs, but is used on only three articles. I would suggest making it a child of Category:Asia road stubs, assuming it's approved, rather than the more general Category:Road stubs. — Swpb talk contribs 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I just didn't want to entirely jump the gun by creating the category "early", too. (To be honest, I thought we already had a China-road-stub, until I "sorted" a China-geo-stub... and got a redlink. So I went for the 'in for a penny' approach...) Now, if someone were to come up with a few more of these, we'd have reason to move them out of the oversized PRC-geo-stubs... Alai 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have 30 at User:Swpb/Asia road stubs to start with, plus whatever roads there are in PRC-geo-stubs. — Swpb talk contribs 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we need a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chinese roads. :) Alai 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I note, with as little editorial comment as possible, that Instantnood has decided this "ought" to be rescoped a "Mainland China" roads (for which we have no corresponding permcat: instead it's Cat:Roads in the People's Republic of China. I feel we need to get as definitive a resolution as soon as is possible, since revert wars in template-populated categories are bad for both tempers and servers. Alai 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I bet you did participate in the previous discussions regarding similar stub types, and you may already know these permenent categories have long been matter of controversy. :-) — Instantnood 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And you feel the best way to resolve this "controversy" is to ignore the permcats, and create other category structures that ignore and contradict those? Alai 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So is it better to ignore the controversies around the perm cats, and to ignore the established system stub types have preserved? It's even worse the stub types were recently modified without any discussion, and you kept their changes and stayed silence with such challenges. — Instantnood 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm out of my depth on that one, so no opinion here. I think the list of China road stubs I put together could be labeled PRC or Mainland stubs with equal accuracy. — Swpb talk contribs 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason why you put only Mainland China roads to your list was that mainland China is usually known simply as "China". Passer-by 10:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
33 as at the time being. I've in fact found some rather short articles too, but they're not tagged with any stub types. Should they now be tagged with {{China-road-stub}} too? :-) — Instantnood 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The original {{China-road-stub}}, before its deletion a year ago, used to be fed into category:mainland China road stubs (cf. [6]). User:Alai recreated the template and rescope in the way he prefers, which is consistent with his stance to similar stub types in previous discussions. — Instantnood 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Before its deletion, indeed. Can't "rescope" a deleted type; this is a fresh proposal, for a stub type that actually conforms to the existing category structure. (If I thought for a moment it'd be Instantnooded, I'd have made a point of leaving the proposal for the full five days, for the avoidance of all doubt. More fool me.) My "preference" and the consistency of my "stance" is hardly just a whimsical choice on my part. This is how the permanent categories are organised, and is the organisational methodology for which there seems to be what-little-consensus-there-is on the matter. If there emerges at some point a decision to organise the PRC into "Mainland China" on the one hand, and "the SARs" on the other, I'm fully in favour of implementing that, "consistently". What I find to be completely unacceptable is this "fighting retreat" approach, where each separate article and category turns into its own revert war and subsequent discussion, and the lack of any acceptance of a once-and-for-all solution implemented consistently across the wiki. Alai 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As mention else where, you said "up merge" in your edit summary when you recreate the template. It's reasonable and logical to be thought of as a continuation of the deleted template. The existing and established stub type structure is to create mainland China stub types whenever appropriate. This is the product of consensus. " What I find to be completely unacceptable is this "fighting retreat" approach.. " - It's simply because some folks have always been refusing to preserve the status quo ante, and keep creating new troubles to spark new fire everywhere they feel nice. — Instantnood 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Generally support, but oppose the scope user:Alai had decided for {{China-road-stub}}. — Instantnood 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Asia stub, Asia category and "china-road-stub" - by "scope" it looks like it was just the country of China. I do not see reason to oppose. Its standard to do country-specific road stubs, and here with have a country "with over 1.31 billion people, it is the most populous country in the world".Goldenrowley 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't oppose the proposal to create {{China-road-stub}}. What I disagree is the scope user:Alai had decided. — Instantnood 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Film editor stubs : {{film-editor-stub}} / Category:Screenwriter stubs : {{screen-writer-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create

A high amount of film editor articles are stubs and there are thousands missing!!!!!! Hundreds all over the world are primarily involved with cinematic editing solely yet there is no stub category!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a film-director-stub and a generic film-bio-stub. I don't see any cinematographer-stub, nor any screenwriter-stub, nor any film-producer-stub, all three of which are more important. We should either create all four, or stay with the generic film-bio-stub. Hoverfish Talk 23:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be best to either split them up like Hoverfish said it or to leave it as it is. Is there one for directors as well? --Nehrams2020 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Note thoughTemplate:Film-producer-stub Template:Cinematographer-stub Template:Film-director-stub Template:US-screen-writer-stub exist it is only film editor and Screen-writer-stub in general missing. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support I had looked in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#People by occupation and didn't find them. Could it be the list needs updating there? In which case I support the Category:Film editor stubs, as well as the generic Category:Screenwriter stubs, since the specific Category:American screenwriter stubs exists. Hoverfish Talk 14:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters. I've been currently tagging Screenwriter articles I come across by placing the Screenwriters Wikiproject's template on the talk page. I would definitely use the stub template if it was created. I would also use the Category:Screenwriter if it was created. I don't have much experience with these technical points, but it's a good idea. It might also be a good idea to disband the Category:American screenwriter with a bot and separate it into Category:American and Category:Screenwriter.-BiancaOfHell 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support {{screen-writer-stub}} (and keep the US-screen-writer-stub as well, as it already has 260 articles). Support {{film-editor-stub}} only if there are already 60+ such items. I'd like to stay away from creating stub types before they're actually viable, on the premise that "someday we'll need this". Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself)
  • Support, I'm working in a loose pattern of creating articles for film technicians who are redlinked in infoboxes and have a breadth of work to make them notable. I've created stubs for all kinds of film-related people so would value more specific stubbing options. Mallanox 01:58, 25 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Cat:Australian environment stubs : {{Australia-environment-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create australia-powerstation-stub, do not create australia-environment-stub

I have recently added an Environment section to the Australia page Australia#Environment and there is a Category:Environment of Australia.

The stub-Australia and stub-environment are too general to assist in providing Australian environmentalists with an easy way to identify articles to work on. The creation of this stub would assist in providing easy identification of Australian environment stubs among Australian environmentalists, promoting the dramatic improvement of this area of Wikipedia.

Pages would include, eg:
Environment of Australia
Wind power in Australia
Solar power in Australia
dinghy 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea if there are 60 stubs that this would use, but I have corrected the proposed template name to match the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Stubsense shows massive amount of possible false positives (2000+) starting from Cat:Environment of Australia but only 2 possible stubs that don't have more specific stub template already. Both are environmentalists (5 potentials including ones with other stubs than {{environment-stub}}). Monni 14:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A search in Wikipedia of: environment AND Australia shows 5895 results. I have no doubt based on this and the stub sense results above that there are 60 stub pages in this proposed Australia-environment-stub. I would expect that the 2000+ possible false positives are also possible true positives, but I am no expert on Stubsense. 47 of 100 and 678 out of 1000 pages scanned were categorised stubs of some description, but who knows how many are uncategorised stubs? dinghy 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess only way to really know is to compile list that contain atleast 60 possible candidates and how this stub is better than the current stubs already in those articles. I do understand that I didn't take account possible subcategories of Environment, but that would have taken quite a while and I didn't have that time back then. Monni 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Biggest problem I see is that we create one stub type that will get oversized really fast and then have to wait again for sub-stub to be accepted... I see atleast {{energy-stub}} and its children having lots of stubs under Cat:Environment of Australia.
One possibility could be separating out {{Australia-powerstation-stub}} / Cat:Australian power station stubs (94 with little possibility of false positives). Monni 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are the counts I could get from StubSense about possible candidates:
I guess that pretty much tells there is either substantial undersorting even to existing categories, or StubSense is heavily buggy. Monni 22:12, 25 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Cat:Military intelligence stubs : {{mil-intel-stub}}

Others have suggested a non-military stub, but there is nothing representing military intelligence currently, and I expect that there are articles where {{mil-intel-stub}} would be preferable over {{mil-stub}}, or other stubs. I would prefer to have the military reference, as it is perhaps easier to use open sources to characterize military intelligence systems and personnel. Plus, I'd hate to add to any Walter Mitty-esque enthusiasm for European torture jaunts and TS/SCI-directed global human abbatoirs by utilizing {{spy-stub}} or {{espionage-stub}}. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 14:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment The current template, {{Milintel-stub}}, is up for renaming at sfd. Support {{espionage-stub}} until enough mil-intel-stubs can be found. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You lost me latterly, there. Are there 60 such articles? If so, support, if not, the wider type seems better-advised, perhaps with a double-upmerged {{mil-intel-stub}} template in addition. Alai 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, Cat:Military intelligence (17 articles) is a parent cat of Cat:Espionage, which has over 200. Should this be rearranged, and if so, how?Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, neither is a proper subset of the other -- though attempting to shoe-horn the category system into meaning anything more than "is kinda related to" is probably doomed for the foreseeable future. The permcats should probably be siblings, though I'm not sure if there's a natural parent. As to the stub types... would either be populable? Alai 15:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like about 77 articles under Cat:Espionage and 43 under Cat:Military intelligence. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Support {{espionage-stub}} with associated category. Monni 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian politicians by province

Oversized again, we've started splitting by province, another batch are now viable:

  • Cat:Nova Scotia politician stubs 108
  • Cat:New Brunswick politician stubs 95
  • Cat:Manitoba politician stubs 79

Alai 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support (as nobody's said anything yet and no decision is shown) Aelfthrytha 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK naval ship subcats

Tthese are now somewhat oversized, and there's no shortage of well-populated subcats by which to split them up:

or:

  • Cat:United Kingdom World War II naval ship stubs 149
  • Cat:United Kingdom World War I naval ship stubs 83

In the case of the first group, there's also "Royal Navy" subcats with essentially identical names (CFD in its eternal wisdom has decided to keep both -- don't ask me), if people have a particular preference for that naming. Alai 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Personally, I pefer the first group. Carom 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm listing towards the first grouping.ALR 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the "patrol vessels" proposal for now: too much overlap. I've also named the sub sub-cat (geddit?) Cat:United Kingdom military submarine stubs for coherence as a subtype of {{UK-mil-ship-stub}}. Possibly Cat:Royal Navy submarine stubs would have been clearer in this instance. Alai 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Apiales stubs

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the ever-growing plant-stubs are nearly at 800, yet again, and this seems to be order de jour at 104 articles. Come to that, just the Cat:Apiaceae stubs would be viable at 74, at the family level. Alai 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Apiales appears to the more stable in membership of the two options as far as what you proposed, but ideally neither should act to reduce the size of plant stub as they should already have {{asterid-stub}} if they were fully sorted. Still, the Asterid stubs are up to 340, so another child of it would be forward looking. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's in fact over 200 unsorted asterids, including these (not even counting the uncategorised ones, of course). However, this seems a pretty clear-cut case where an additional, narrower type now will avoid some double-handling later. (If I were going to be really thorough, I'd start creating upmerged templates for every order with any sort of population.) Alai 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African Singer Stub

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

The result of the debate was create

This is my first stub proposal, so forgive me if I'm not doing this correctly. I've been searching through the singer stub category since its really large and I've been finding a lot of African singers, around 20 a page. I haven't been able to keep a count though since there are so many pages of stubs in this category. Zemalia 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • {{africa-singer-stub}} / Cat:African singer stubs would be the template and category. I think starting with template would be first step to get exact count and then category when 60 candidates are found. I know how hard it is to keep count while browsing through long lists. Monni 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support template and category. I've handsorted nearly every African bio category and believe it will meet the guidelines (IE 60), most likely exceeding them.--Thomas.macmillan 18:04, 22 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Test (student assessment) stub

I didn't know I was supposed to propose a stub before creating it. Oops. I made it already at {{test-stub}}. There's a conversation about it over here. Now that I've been informed about the criteria for new stubs, I don't think it will get 60 pages. I was going to use this page to identify new tests that I find out about (especially state tests). For example:

I still think the stub would be quite useful in categorizing pages that need to be expanded about tests. — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would, but there really does need to be 60+ articles before the stub type should be implemented. You can always use the {{expand}} tag for now. How about keeping a list until they hit 60? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I'll be using Category:Standardized tests for new entries, and if I get up to 60 stub articles, I can remake the stub category. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Pesky disappearing comment! If you feel strongly this will be growing rapidly, you might consider an upmerged template, to spare retagging effort later. But please don't call it {{test-stub}}: quite honestly, "student assessment" is about the third topic that occurred to me when I saw this listing. I'd suggest instead {{edu-exam-stub}}, or perhaps {{edu-test-stub}}. Alai 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the last proposed name. What do you mean by "upmerge"? I'm new to making stubs... — Chris53516 (Talk) 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
By 'upmerged'. I mean feeding into Cat:education stubs, as a duplicate template. Alai 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think many of the articles have both. We should just delete it. — Chris53516 (Talk) 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean, 'duplicate' in the sense that it's an additional template in that category; I don't suggest adding it in addition to {{edu-stub}} on any given article (indeed, as you say, they should be removed). Alai 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain stubs

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Ooops, I've too fast creating the stub for the Asturian related articles, I'm so sorry. Anyway, I've noticed there's no specific stub category covering various general stuff related to asturias (art, education, economy, images, etc...), so I propose to create a generic one: Cat:Asturias stubs. -- · Ravenloft · (Talk) 11:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What's the likely population? I note that of the current seven, half are not really by any plausible criteria stubs at all. Alai 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I see there is {{asturias-geo-stub}} already, so I guess having template wouldn't hurt, but it needs to be upmerged if there isn't enough existing articles that apply. Also, if a lot of the articles would be biographies, better would be to make {{asturias-bio-stub}} instead. Monni 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • uhhh no it wouldn't! Biographies are not split by subnational region, except in cases where a person is specifically tied to a location (e.g., politician stubs). Biographies should not be included in Cat:Asturias stubs at all, not evenm as a subtype. In contrast, geo-stubs are split by subnational region. The reason is simple - individual people move around a lot more than towns do. An Asturias-stub is a reasonable idea, but upmerging is likely unless there are 60 or so stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I did mention "that apply" meaning I already ruled out normal biographies... What came to my mind is indeed politicians and members of royal house, which kinda are interestingly less moving people. I just didn't want to offer zillion small stub templates as an alternative. Monni 21:36, 16 February 2007 (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.

[edit] US-business-bio- subcats

I thought these were already 'pending', but I can find no earlier proposal for them:

  • Cat:United States entrepreneur stubs 128
  • Cat:United States chief executive stubs 125

At any rate, they seem to be urgently needed, unless someone has a better idea of how to split this nine-pager. I also note that there's very high double-stubbing of this tag and US-rail-bio-. That seems rather redundant to me, though I wonder if we can tweak things to make this more explicit. Alai 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not rendundant at all as the rail bio include both the owners and the notable workers, inventors, engineers (both civil and train), etc. Best split would be by business sector, and since you say there's significant double stubbing with US-rail-bio-stub, that suggests starting with {{US-rail-business-bio-stub}} → Cat:American railroad executive stubs → Cat:American railroad executives. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose there's a few engineers in there too, true. I shall hold out for US-rail-business-bio- when the (actual or potential) double-stubbing gets that bit more extensive. By-sector occurred to me, but it's not at all obvious how clearly categorised people are on that basis, in addition to which there's the "if you think I can't manage something I know nothing about, you know nothing about management" factor: lots of these won't be particular to a given sector in any recognisable sense. Alai 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Support the chief executive stubs. Those seem fairly clear-cut. Crystallina 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split of Tennis-bio-stub

Tennis bio stubs are over 500 with only one subcat (US). No country has 60 articles but I propose

Waacstats 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Alai 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Make France and UK subcategories. Don't up merge. Michael G. Davis 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US screen actor subcats

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

In line with what Caerwine notes at the bottom of the page, the US-screen-actor-stub type is almost at 800, and the following are immediately viable:

It would make sense to create at least templates over the whole likely range, and as there are already some subcategories, we should bear that in mind when assessing category viability. Alai 13:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Add to this templates for the 20's, 30's, and 90's, plus a template for film actors of the 90's. This would give us a consistent set of templates for screen, tv, and film actors that covers the 20's thru the 90's in each case. I got sidetracked from stub sorting by creating an article for the Joe McDoakes series of film shorts, so I still have 5 pages of American actor stubs to process, and with this proposal now made official, I'll await the outcome of this before doing the rest so as to avoid double sorting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - but make sure the year is spelt out fully in the template - there are quite a few early film stars born in the 1880s and 1890s. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 10 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Fictional Dog Stub

In The Current List Of Dog Articles Which Are Stubs, Many Of Them Are Films, Cartoons And TV Programmes. I Propose We Make {{Dog Stub-Fictional}}. ACBestMy Contributions 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Would "many" be 60? If viable, template name should something more like {{fict-dog-stub}}. Alai 09:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If there's 60, then support - with Alai's suggested name. I'd Suggest You Have A Look At You Shift Key, Too. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New athletics-bio-stubs

I would like to propose the following splits of various athletics cats
From Asia-athletics-bio-stub
{{China-athletics-bio-stub}} and Cat:Chinese athletics biography stubs (63 articles)
{{Japan-athletics-bio-stub}} (45 articles)
From Oceania-athetics-bio-stub
{{Australia-athletics-bio-stub}} and Cat:Australian athletics biography stubs (81 articles)
From Africa-athletics-bio-stub
Cat:Nigerian athletics biography stubs (62 articles)
{{Morocco-athletics-bio-stub}} (43 articles)
From Caribbean-athletics-bio-stub
{{Trinidad-athletics-bio-stub}} (40 articles)
and finally as the only continent not to have its own category
{{SouthAm-athletics-bio-stub}} and Cat:South American athletics biography stubs (56 articles)
I know this is a bit small but I think it is needed for completeness and it is not to far off 60
Waacstats 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Alberta school stubs

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

The result of the debate was transfer to WP:SFD

There was already a template for it, but no cat, and that didn't make any sense to me. So I created one. Kevlar67 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I really must add that paragraph to WP:STUB on "stub types that are deliberately upmerged to the parent until such time as they're an appropriate size". Oppose, too small (and since this is a "self-discovery" rather than a proposal, take to WP:SFD). Alai 01:07, 8 February 2007 (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.

[edit] European ethnic groups

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

Though Cat:Ethnic group stubs isn't really in any hurry to be split up, I note that probably 1/3 of the stubs in it (about 120 stubs) seem to be for European ethnicities - many of those for ancient tribes. A {{Euro-ethno-group-stub}} might be a very useful split. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support whole heartedly. I am not sure, but it might have already been approved? I don't recall when, though.--Thomas.macmillan 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Logical and backed by double-necessary numerics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:31, 9 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Cat:Asian film biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was postpone until after Japan-film-bio-stub has been populated

I count 73 candidates, not counting a number of unsorted Indians. Parent is just barely below 800. Alai 03:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, with a note that there is already Category:Indian film biography stubs as well, and provided that there aren't too many Japanese counted in the 73 above. Neier 11:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • IIRC the Japanese were the largest constituent, aside from the Indians (that's why I wasn't counting those). I'm happy to hold off on this until after the Japan- type is considered and populated. Alai 15:32, 8 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Cat:local government stubs

I don't see any government-by-country splits that look feasible, aside from some undersorting to the US, but this looks like a runner, with 114 candidates. Alai 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Define "local". In the U.S. at least, the term "local government" does not usually include "State government". (Note: the permacats for Government look like they could use some serious reorganizing as far as differentiating between national and subnational government and the various levels of subnational government.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In Cat:local government. Alai 12:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV character subcats

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

Parent is now at exactly 800. (Or was when I last looked.) Alai 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Support; revised per naming convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops. (Though you removed one of the wrong s's!) Alai 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Double oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Doubleplus oppose on these specifics as way too POV and open to dispute. There has to be a more neutral and incontrovertible way to subcategorize. Seen Fight Club? Is that a drama? Or is it an action movie? Or a comedy? Or... Support notion, strongly, of splitting an 800-stub category somehow, no doubt. At near-midnight my time I don't have a better idea; just saying I have faith that there must be something less open to interpretation (ergo near-inevitable editwarring). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
These are a) how the permcats are already organised, and b) how these stubs are already categorised. If you want to expunge all notion of genre from the category structure, you'll be having a busy (and I imagine, "interesting") time at CFD. Alai 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. Valentinian T / C 22:48, 11 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Cat:United States television producer stubs

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

The result of the debate was create US-tv-producer-stub and US-tv-writer-stub

I've just made Cat:United States television biography stubs spill onto its sixth page by mass-moving lots from its parent, making further splits of it in turn seem like a plan. This seems the most promising, with 56 in the permcat at time of last db dump (will have to be checked if they're primarily producers, but I'm sure we'll need this sooner or later. I wonder also if we should look to split the "screenwriters", which currently has both a TV and a film parent, into one of each Cat:United States television writer stubs or Cat:United States teleplay writer stubs, or something to that effect. I'm refraining for the time being from suggesting a "personalities" or "entertainer" subtype, but... Alai 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support {{US-tv-writer-stub}} / Cat:United States television writer stubs as more commonly used round these parts. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support narrowed version, but question. I.e., S. per Pegship, but why "writer" (but also why "producer"? Bears on someone else's suggestion elsewhere that "sportspeople" be used to subsume people who aren't actually sportspeople by the usual definition of the word, such as sports writers and commentators. I find this a bit curious, but assume there must be a rationale for it. As for "television writer" and "teleplay writer" I don't think anyone outside of the Hollywood industry would recognize a difference, nor between those two combined and screenwriters, script writers, etc. It's just too industry-geeky a set of distinctions. By way of comparison, we don't have different categories for (notable, if there are any; let's say wouldn't have them for) system adminstrators, systems adminstrators, network administrators, systems and network adminstrators, etc.; or separate ones for people in public relations, media relations, member relations, constituent relations, etc. (they're all "PR flacks"). "Congressional lobbyist" or "senior network security engineer", maybe (inversely respectively), but even that's iffy. To get back to this nomination, yes we need to distinguish actors from production-side people, but every SAG-recognized sub-occupation doesn't necessarily need its own category here, or we'd soon have Category:Second wardrobe assistants. WP's not IMDb, after all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • On "sportspeople" and similar cases: basically it's so there's someplace topic-related to sort them, when there wouldn't be enough to give them a category of their own. Strictly speaking they should probably then be called something like "sport(s) biography stubs" (which doesn't precisely correspond to any particular permcat, but equally, nor does the present scope). In this case, television producers are categorised differently from TV directors, executives and writers (see the immediate descendants of Cat:television people), so it'd require some of an active decision on our part to do some lumping to have a broader scope. If there's a large amount of overlap between the various off-screen roles, it might be beneficial to do so. (I'm certainly not proposing we sort to anything finer than the permcats in these cases.) Alai 14:27, 10 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Cat:television documentary stubs

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

The result of the debate was create by subject

I half-heartedly half-propose this, as much as anything in the hopes that someone will have a better idea (or firm up on and follow-through with this themselves). The docs are over 800, and categorisation seems, like the punchline of the old British Leyland joke, to be "about half" (and not very fine-grained at that). There's 33 of them catted like this, and after that come "American", "Canadian" and "BBC", none of which seem like great axes. Alai 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about stubbing and catting some based on subject matter like we've already started with {{music-documentary-stub}}?
  • {{bio-documentary-stub}}
  • {{hist-documentary-stub}}
  • {{poli-documentary-stub}}
  • {{sci-documentary-stub}}
  • {{sport-documentary-stub}}
  • {{war-documentary-stub}}

This list of subjects seems like a possible starting point. However, I already have enough stub sorting on my plate to do anything more than suggesting a split at this time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Those'd be the categories I mentioned being miserably populated (or, not existing). I'll cast the net a little wider, on the off-chance... (Though I'm really hoping that someone (else) will take it on themselves to do something, the old-fashioned (i.e. hard) way...) Alai 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Support by subject, and I can help. Let me just get my shovel...Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Qualified support: If the numbers are there, sounds good, and way better than trying to do it by US/UK/Azerbaijani, or BBC/NBC/TBS (what on earth would one do with Walking with Dinosaurs, which exists in one UK, BBC, version and not one but two (one under another name) US A&E versions, plus the BBC/A&E crossover DVDs? That road lies madness I tell you, M@DN3SS!!! Or something like that, anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:40, 9 February 2007 (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.

[edit] {{Unitarianism-stub}} and {{Universalism-stub}}

As the phrase "Unitarian Universalism" is a registered trademark of an organization (the Unitarian Universalist Association) the use of the UU stub to classify all entries related to Unitarian or Universalist theology, regardless of their relation to the UUA, is somewhat misleading. "Unitarian Universalism" as an organizational trademark is quite distinct from the theologies of Unitarianism and Universalism, neither of which continue to be core principles of the UUA, even though they are important to specific UUA-affiliated groups.

Although there would be significant overlap, articles related to the theologies but which have no relation to the UUA should not be identified by the UUA trademarked phrase, while articles related to the UUA, but unrelated to the theologies of Unitarianism or Universalism, should solely be identified by the stub tag using the trademarked "Unitarian Universalism." Articles relating to the American Unitarian Association and Universalist Church of America, which joined to form the Unitarian Universalist Association in 1961, should be UU-stubbed for their relation to the UUA and stubbed for their respective theologies in order to connect them to other religious groups not affiliated with the UUA that also promote Unitarianism and/or Universalism. Nelsonleith 16:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "Significant" would be putting it mildly. I don't think the implication that the term "Unitarian Universalism" is particular to the UUA is correct; if it really is a registered mark, their enforcement seems to be a little... liberal. If you're in effect proposing a type for Unitarian topics that aren't Unitarian Universalist topics, and one for Universalist topics that aren't Unitarian Universalist topics, I can't help but wonder whether either is going to have a "viable" number of stubs, especially without "unpicking" the UUA into precusor bodies, which will get unnecessarily messy. I'd suggest upmerged templates feeding into a common category, which can make scoping nuances clear without splitting things up unduly, or leading to an excess of double- (and triple-, etc) stubbing. Alai 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename at least the existing cat to Cat:Unitarianism stubs, Delete {{Universalism-stub}}. If UUA stuff is sufficient, Keep {{Universalism-stub}} and have it file things in a New Cat:Unitarian Universalism stubs subcat. Or just upmerge them into Cat:Unitarianism stubs if the numbers are too low; whatever. Easy-peasy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the UUA is pretty diligent about the use of its trademark, which is only proper. Technically, you have to defend a trademark, or else the trademark could lose its legal standing. On the matter of overlap, I would think that all UU stubs could be clustered under Unitarianism (Universalism is, I grant, a much smaller category) but this could be perceived as a sectarian/political maneuver rather than merely an effort to clarify the difference between Unitarian theology and the UUA. 24.99.218.69 03:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't follow this. The Canadian Unitarian Council is a UU denomination, is described as such in its WP article, and is categorised under Cat:Unitarian Universalism. If there's some "oh no, the UUA will sue us" issue, tinkering with the stub categories doesn't seem to me to be the most logical place to start. Alai 17:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Cue-sports-bio-stub}} + conforming twiddles

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

The result of the debate was create as revised

See discussions at WP:SFD and stub naming guidelines.
As per discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports#Stub templates and categories, proposing creation of this stub. As noted in the text there, there is already a draft version that can simply be moved (don't bother copying; we'd just have to do a MfD to get rid of the old one). There are 47 50 62 68 75 and counting <I estimate 75-80 within 2 5 days) cue sports-related biography stubs. Also requesting:

  1. Rename of existing {{Cuesport-stub}} to {{Cue-sports-stub}}, in keeping with the rest of the templates relating to this active WikiProject ({{Cue sports project}}, {{Cue sports nav}}, etc., etc. Only the main article at Cue sport uses the singular (because WP art. naming conventions require that), and none of the related articles, categories, etc., uses the term run-together as "cuesport". The naming inconsistency is a real thorn in the side for the active editors.
  2. If the -'s in the stub template name are not mandatory (they don't seem to be - I see loads of stub templates without them), leave them out, i.e. {{Cue sports stub}} vs {{Cue-sports-stub}}. We are not generally using dashes like this in template names more generally, so the usage is confusing and hard to remember. Yesterday I was trying to add a stub template to an article, and it took me seven tries (cue sports stub, cuesports stub, cue-sports-stub, etc., etc., until I got it right!)
  3. Please don't upmerge the bio stubs into the larger category, or there's no point in having two stubs. The bio stubs are going to continue increasing at a fast pace, and we'd like them in their own new subcat under Category:Cue sports stubs, i.e. Category:Cue sports bio stubs
  4. Rename Category:Cue sport stubs (which isn't consistent with the template or the project) to Category:Cue sports stubs
  5. Conforming changes to the snooker sub-project ones, i.e. move templates from hyphenated versions to {{Snooker stub}} and {{Snooker bio stub}}, and have {{Snooker-bio-stub}} feed into its own new Category:Snooker bio stubs under Category:Snooker stubs. There are 72 77 snooker biography stubs.

Some of this was discussed w/o any input from me or other WP:CUE participants, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/28#Cue sports mess, because in my case I was travelling, and I guess the others just didn't notice. So this is kind of a renewal/extension of that discussion. Anyway, this is all part of a larger cleanup of this entire article- and category-space (the next step being the renaming of all the high-level "Billiards something" categories to "Cue sports something" in conformance of the top-level article's move from Billiards to Cue sport, due to the treble ambiguity of the term "billiards"). PS: The snooker stub templates do need to exist and go to their own categories, as the overlap between this pair of topically parent-and-descendant WikiProjects is just about nil; the average WP:CUE member doesn't know enough about snooker to contribute meaningfully to stubs in that topic, and arguably often vice-versa - snooker is its own world. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: If (I really don't spend much time in here...) there really is a genuine consensus that all stub tags should have hyphenated names for some reason, I don't intend to fight that; just ignore those parts. If there is no such consensus, then please don't ignore those parts.  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Refactored to remove moot issues/suggestions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Updated 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible oppose of the template renames. You may have a wikiproject naming convention, but so have we: WP:WSS/NG. And as it affects 3000+ such templates. "No spaces" is something we've just about gotten consistent, the last thing we want to do is start making ad hoc exceptions afresh. One could make an argument for {{cuesport-stub}}, {{cuesports-stub}} or {{cue-sports-stub}}, however. (That distinction is subtle enough that a redirect from the others to chosen one might well be a good plan.) Also, this is the wrong venue: you'd want WP:SFD, and to tag them appropriately. You want complete consistency? Move the rest. I'll help.
  • On (ahem) {{cuesports-bio-stub}}: what's the current number of these? That's the whole rationale for a separate type, and the one piece of information there's no hint at. (If there's not 60, then... upmerge.)
  • Are there enough bios for both a "snooker" and a "cue sports" category, separately? Again, you give no indication. If there's 60 (of both), fair enough, but a better name would be Cat:snooker player stubs, following the permcat, or if you want to be slightly more inclusive, Cat:snooker biography stubs.
  • I think Cat:Cue sport stubs is consistent with Cat:Cue sports; it's just avoiding a redundant plural. Is this a "singular of 'sports' is 'sports'" thing? Now admittedly, the overall parent is at Cat:Sports stubs, so I'd have no objection as such. (At SFD.)
  • For the previous renamings, the affected templates and categories were appropriately tagged during the discussion period, so if no-one participated (or noticed...). (Now admittedly, I wasn't exactly mega-active that week myself...)
  • I'm a bit boggled by the "nil overlap" statement. If "cue sports" isn't supposed to cover snooker, why is it so tortuously named? Where does "English" billiards (I can't quite believe that's where the article has ended up...) fall into this UK/US nice clean split? I'm beginning to wonder if we weren't better off before the first iteration of all this, with separate pool-, billiards- and snooker- types, without the neologising and supposed consolidation... that doesn't actually consolidate anything? At any rate, our objective is to organise things consistent with the permcats and the size criteria, so...
  • Why do you have a "stub template" in the wikipedia project space? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Template:Cue sports bio stub) It's not transcluded on any articles, but it certainly makes the stub category look strange. Oh, wait, that's the draft, right? Alai 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And lastly... what's with the WP:OWN-fest that is {{CatMaintainPageWP}}? A more standard-looking wikiproject banner would be highly preferable; and such entities really shouldn't be on "permanent" categories at all. (Put them on permcat talk pages if you wish.) But I'm getting a little off-topic... Alai 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments: Yeesh. I'll try to just take all this in turn:
  1. If there really is a putsch to make all stub tags use dashes, I've already said that I have no problem with it. Moot point. {{cue-sports-stub}}, {{cue-sports-bio-stub}}. Next.
  2. By my count there are 47 id'd WP:CUE bio stubs, but I'm still in the process of going thru the snooker bio stubs and seeing which of them also need WP:CUE stubs (because they are not just snooker players); that seems to be about 1 in 5 or so of every snooker bio stub I look at, and there are LOTS of them. And, see WP:CUEBIOS; the other most-active participant in WP:CUE is very intent on creating at least stubs for everyone on that list (see also the "New article" section at WP:CUE; a number of them are in fact bios and bio stubs from this list; the process is already ongoing).
  3. There appear to be 72 (identified) snooker bio stubs; WP:SNOOKER is pretty prolific.
  4. Cat:Cue sports was in fact modelled on Cat:Sports, so, yeah, Cat:Cue sports stubs is what we were after. And they are multiple sports, from a community/organizations/tournaments/rules/history/etc. perspective. So it's not a "singular of sports is sports" issue at all.
  5. The holiday period isn't necessarily the best time for big changes. Heh. Anyway, I don't think that prior silence somehow auto-invalidates present activity.
  6. Re: 'boggled by the "nil overlap" statement' - I'm referring strictly to participants in these wikiprojects. By and large the WP:SNOOKER members have no Wikipedian cue sports interest outside snooker, and to date most of the WP:CUE members are interested in pool and carom games amost exclusively and are happy to leave the WP:SNOOKER crowd to their own devices. I think I may be the only person in both of them. WP:SNOOKER is only a descendant wikiproj of WP:CUE in a categorization sense (which is also why some bios are being tagged as stubs under both; a player bio languishing under WP:SNOOKER might get the attention it needs under WP:CUE if the player in question is also a Mosconi Cup nine-ball player).
  7. English billiards does not mean "billliards as played in England"; it is a unique (just unfortunately named) game, that is a hybrid of carom and pocket billiards, with its own unique ruleset, history, tournaments, pros and so on. There really isn't anything else like it anywhere. If you dig deep into the categories, you'll find Cat:English players of English billiards, etc, because "English English billiards players" would just look like a typo. This naming ambiguity resolution method is getting conventionalized as we speak: [7]
  8. Neologism? Um, no. See more than adequate sourcing at Talk:Cue sport demonstrating that "cue sports" is in fact international industry-standard terminology, and the only such term that isn't ambiguous. Next.
  9. Re: 'Why do you have a "stub template" in the wikipedia project space?' Yes, it's the draft as I already said, stored there for project member comment and editing until such time as it needs to be moved into Template:space. See also the first link I mentioned in the nom, where a regular here suggested we propose it as a real stub template. Please forgive me, but I'm getting the strong impression that I'm just being attacked on every topic you can think of an attack about, whether you've actually looked into their background or not... Which brings us to:
  10. {{CatMaintainPageWP}} and {{CatMaintainTalkWP}} are simply less rudimentary versions of {{CatMaintain}} and {{Monitored category}} which have been around a long time; if you disagree with their usage or existence, maybe take it up on their talk pages. The point of them is to direct people to a project before making major changes to categories that affect that project, to discuss it at the project. It's not any more WP:OWN than WikiProject Stub sorting's assertion of "regulation" of not only stubs but categories relating to stubs, to such an extent that Cfx won't even touch them any longer and sends everyone here. Regardless, yes, it's ugly, and will be replaced (in these particular categories) with {{Cue sports project2}}; just hasn't been a high priority. If someone wants to TfD those CatMaintain* templates and their parents, be my guest. Next.
  11. ANYWAY, the gist is: The extant stub cat for WP:CUE is malnamed. The extant stub template is too, in a differerent way (and no I'm not speaking of hyphenation any longer; I conceded that point as totally moot). The new bio tag and cat are aguably justifiable in that there probably definitely really are 60 cue sports bio stubs, some of them just haven't been tagged yet, way more bios are coming, and there are only a handful of genuinely active editors at WP:CUE; it's not like WikiProject History, so anything that helps keep things organized is a boon. If the new bio tag is rejected, I'd still like the have the other two issues dealt with. And as a WP:SNOOKER participant, too, I'd like to see snooker-bio-stub put things in a subcat, because there are over 60 bio stubs and they drown out all other stub work WP:SNOOKER needs to deal with.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: {{CatMaintainPageWP}} and {{CatMaintainTalkWP}} have been removed from all the relevant cats. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Would prefer Cat:Cue sports bio stubs over Cat:Cue sports biography stubs and same for Snooker, since it will parallel the template names better, and these cats are for editors, not readers, so plainest-possible longwinded English isn't really needed. If there is a hard and fast WikiProject Stub sorting rule that "biography" should be spelled out, I have no objection and withdraw this sub-request, and don't need to be flamed by anyone about that either, thank you.  :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Howabout Cue sportspeople stubs? Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Doesn't seem in keeping with the conventions around here. But more importantly, these bio stubs and stubcats are for more than sportspeople, including writers, announcers, notable industry giants, etc. - the people in (and destined to be in; my next article will probably be Robert Byrne (billiards writer)) Cat:Billiards non-player personalities (under CfD as we speak to become Cat:Cue sports non-player personalities), for example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment We've been including more than just the players in other categories in the Cat:Sportspeople stubs hierarchy, so including non-players as well would be not just acceptable, but expected. Possibly Cat:Cue sports people stubs would be more in line. The rule is to generally follow the parent cat as closely as possible, but that's not possible when there are two categories that would be the parent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Then "sportspeople" as a term in those categories is being misused. I'm not sure I see what the debate on this point is really about. I'm not asking for a new naming convention, just consistency. These categories don't exist for encyclopedia readers, but editors, especially WikiProject or otherwise organized, focused ones trying to improve an entire category of stubs into real articles, for whom consistency (i.e. "Cue-sports-bio-stub = Cat:Cue sports bio stubs") is way more useful than encyclopedic longwindedness just for its own sake. If (multiple) people are really, really going to feel strongly about not liking "bio" in the cat. names, fine, call them Cat:Cue sports biography stubs and Cat:Snooker biography stubs, and I'm sure we'll be able to deal with it. But, please, not "sportspeople"; that would be genuinely erroneous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: At WP:WSS/NG#xx-xx-stub the "complex/compound" argument there simply doesn't apply; there just are not possibly enough sub-topics of this topic area to ever generate, much less justify, complexity of the sort envisioned there, so running-together of the name (e.g. as cuesport[s]) is not justified, per with that guideline's own counter-examples: "e.g., DC-Comics-stub, Opera-singer-stub" (and actually, given the wide range of conceivable DC Comic subcategorizing, I think that counter-example is very telling!) The stub names requested are also consistent with the '#Hybrid/complex/composite/compound stubs' section in the same guideline; it's a very simply "just tack it on" process. Cf. also: "Preferably, these [stubcat names] should be in a similar form to their non-stub parent categories", '#General form' in same guideline, thus again "cuesport[s]" is contraindicated. Lastly, in #Abbreviations, same guideline, the only examples given are in fact of acronyms, and even the guideline says such constructions are in use in stubcat names and does not condemn them; meanwhile bio is not an acronym, and is in suffiencent use as to have a solid Wiktionary entry; from a usage perspective it is an actual word, as in "do you have the new copy of the executive director's bio ready?", not a simple abbreviation (*bio.); ergo, there is no compelling reason to use the longer word, especially given that stubcats are not intended for readers, but editors. Can we please move on now? The WikiProject Stub sorting guideline (which does not appear to be an actual Wikipedia Guideline in the first place, just an internal WPSS document), largely supports, and nowhere conclusively contraverts, the requests in this nomination. Why all the fussing? I think this is the third time I've asked this question, in one form or another, either here directly or in edit summary, and I've yet to get any answer, much less a compelling one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: At CfD[8] It has been strongly implied that no action at all will be taken with regard to renaming the Cat:Cue sport stubs category to Cat:Cue sports subs because I somehow did not follow the correct stubs-for-whatever process this WikiProject insists upon. If this is actually the case, I'd appreciate confirmation (from someone other than Alai, who made the assertion in the first place); otherwise, I have better WP things to do, like actually working on articles, than jump through hoops to re-propose a rather obvious cat. maintenance rename. From what I can tell here, and in the real, policy-based XfD processes, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with moving for additional cleanup (renames, etc.) when proposing something related at the appropriate place, as I have done here. Notably, Alai himself has done just that (and I've complied - removal of templates he disagrees with and fixing self-ref WPP categorization in an article category; see "Update" messages at above URL). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I do see a lot of "Whatever biography subs" cats — not exclusively, but enough that it suggests a nascent convention — so I won't argue any further for the abbreviation. Current proposal stands at:
  • Template:Cue-sports-stub ⇒ Category:Cue sports stubs
  • Template:Cue-sports-bio-stub ⇒ Category:Cue sports biography stubs
  • Template:Snooker-stub ⇒ Category:Snooker stubs
  • Template:Snooker-bio-stub ⇒ Category:Snooker biography stubs
Are we all happy now? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Clear and near-identical precedent: {{Water-sports-stub}}, Cat:Water sports stubs — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion at stub naming guidelines. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Request Please close this in favor of the revised proposal. Any further discussion of the wider sports/arts/etc. naming issue, and WP:WSS processes, that may or may not arise at the NG's talk page (thus far, I don't see any interest in the topic, though I'm considering proposing an NG clarity revision) should not hold up this proposal any longer - Wikipedia is not a fillibuster as someone else said recently. The proposal is demonstrably supported by the numbers and has no objections to the revised version after 12 days now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:34, 19 February 2007 (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.

[edit] "PRC", née "Mainland China" locations oversized again

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 raised an eyebrow when I saw "Cat:People's Republic of China geography stubs 7" on the to-do list: it seems that one of the "one China, two entrenched positions" editors has been busy again, not just upmerging China-geo-stub to there (which I favoured, but there was hardly a clear consensus for when we discussed it recently), but also double-catting the HongKong- ones in there too. However, even after undoing the latter, it's still a little oversized, and no single province (or first order division, or thing remarkably like a first order division you'll be talked to death for describing as such) has even 30. Long term way of fixing that is probably to add per-(thingie) cats to all those lacking them: a list! However, that lacks the swift satisfaction of a resolution anytime before, oh, the next db dump or some such time, so I have a quick fix for now: {{South Central China geography stubs}}, which would get about 109 stubs from 6 upmerged templates. Alai 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Perhaps we should write the the Chinese government asking them to restructure their regions to something more suitable for stub sorting ;) Grutness...wha? 04:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I did a full (laborious) count of this and found different results. The following provinces have more than thirty: Hebei (30), Heilongjiang (39), Henan (40), Hubei (39), Hunan (40), Jiangsu (33), Shandong (41), Sichuan (41), Yunan (35). I would be in favor of giving these their own upmerged templates because they're close enough. Even if we creat those and upmerge them into your proposed stub also, it would be a good step considering the tendency of stubs to multiply. Less work in the future, and all that. If you want complete count details for all provinces except the urban cities, I can provide that upon request. Aelfthrytha 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Upmerged templates is exactly what I proposed. (It's just that upmerging it to the main cat kinda gets us nowhere in terms of it's size in the medium-term...) Alai 18:41, 5 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Splits of Cat:Software stubs

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

The result of the debate was create templates; create cats for those over 60

I've starting looking at our current largest stub category, and I've quickly come to the conclusion that it needs more sub types if it is going to be brought down to <800. I'm not certain of the counts so I propose starting these as upmerged templates in case my initial perception has played me false. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this earlier proposal, also including the business type. Alai 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-crnched the numbers, and here's the first-level subcats of Cat:software by domain that break 30,
The trouble being, that that category hierarchy is lamentably underpopulated: 505 total, out of a 12-page type. On that basis, one might quadruple the counts (with a huge margin for error). Other counts: Statistical software, 26; Utility software, 16; Financial software, 16; Educational software, 16; Credit Collections software, 15; Data compression software, 14; Cryptographic software, 11; Communication software, 10. Alai 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the big 5 you found, here's how I see it. The science software is likely to have severe overlap with simulation software, which would also cover engineering oriented software, and the remainder likely overlaps with educational software so I don't favor that for a first iteration of sorting. As for text editors, I'd prefer creating {{programming-software-stub}} → Cat:Computer programming tool stubs → Cat:Computer programming tools which is a parent of Cat:Text editors. I support a {{music-software-stub}} and we already have a {{graphics-software-stub}}.
Net result add:
to my original proposal. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In the db dump, the "science software" and the "simulation software" (of which there were... 4) don't overlap at all. Unless your recattings have changed things rapidly... Biggest groups are computational chemistry software, physics software, the aforementioned statistical software... Alai 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is based on inspection of the first 50 or so stubs, and I'd prefer to not have to look at each article twice and have keep track of it on the first go around. Since my perception might play me false, that's why I'm suggesting they start as upmerged templates and expand to have cats if my intuition proves true (despite being of the wrong gender for effective intuition). Hand stubbing is not fun, but in a case like this where there is undercategorization, it's essential. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:32, 5 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Templates (and a couple of categories) for African biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create template & cat for Namibia, upmerged templates for others

All the countries listed below need templates, but not categories (yet): Mozambique, Chad, Guinea, and Benin. They have between 40 and 53 bio-stubs. Namibia needs its own bio-template and category (59 by hand count).--Thomas.macmillan 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support templates. Categories when 60. Valentinian T / C 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support templates, it is much easier to have them - when you're in stubbing mode - than to not have them. Goldenrowley 02:56, 8 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Other stub-related discussions

[edit] American screen actor stubs headsup

I'm busy sorting American actor stubs and a lot of them are getting resorted as screen actor stubs. I expect that by the time I'm done, the screen actors will be well into overlarge territory (I'm expecting it to be 6 or 7 pages). So this is a heads up to Alai that we'll probably need to do per decade categories for the screen actors soon, just as we have for the US tv and film actors. It might be a good idea to use the same decades for all three groupings so as to simplify stub sorting, even if a few end up under 60 stubs. That would mean creating a {{US-film-actor-1990s-stub}} and stubs for the 20s-90s for the screen actors. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason we can't create all those templates, upmerged as necessary. I'll go crunch some numbers on the basis of yesterday's db dump. Alai 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CVG → VG?

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 at cfd for renaming.

It looks like there's a renaming in progress over at Category:Computer and video games, to Category:Video games. Do we need to start thinking about redirects for the cvg-stubs? Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like someone's trying to hijack it to their preferred name. The name change didn't go through CFD. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Appears the CVG people have decide to become just VG. I don't really care what they call themselves, but they really should have gone through CFD to avoid a reaction from people like me who are prone to suspect the worst. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's in the CfD now. Please read the talk pages on Video game and the WP:CVG pages for the logic behind the change. BcRIPster 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Followup - The cfd proposals include the stub categories. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 6 February 2007 (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.

Below is the transclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries (edit)

Shortcut:
WP:WSS/D
WikiProject Stub sorting
 v • d • e 
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) 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

This WP:WSS subpage is for discoveries of stub templates not cleared by WikiProject Stub sorting which have been encountered on Wikipedia. Stubs that have been put on the official stub type list without discussion on this page or /Proposals should be listed here as well. If you discover such a stub type, please list it at the bottom of this page along with any relevant details. Do not enter it on the stub type list until it has been discussed here to determine whether it should be kept or proposed for deletion at stub types for deletion.

[edit] Newly discovered, April 2006

[edit] {{Free software-stub}} / Free software stubs

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.

This was sent to SFD with no consensus [9]. Template was renamed to {{free-software-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{microsoft-stub}} / Category:Microsoft stubs

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.

[edit] August 2006

[edit] Cat:Current British MP stubs / {{UK-current-MP-stub}}

Only one article in cat at time of writing. From my experience most current MPs have a half-decent article, certainly not stubs, and Stub Sense only finds 42 stubs. The real number is likely to be lower than that, due to double-stubbing. --Mais oui! 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty bad idea. Such categories will be nothing but trouble to maintain. Valentinian (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Taking it to SFD. Valentinian (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mag-stub split

OK, this isn't actually a "discovery", on grounds too multiple to mention, but could someone take a look at the recent splits from {{mag-stub}}, and tell me if they make sense after the fact? I've had more comments on my bot's page about these than about anything else, and I'm beginning to wonder if the whole scheme wasn't deeply misguided, and rendered meaningless by following excessively broad and vaguely-defined perm-cats. (I do have to keep reminding myself that according to several-deep category membership, Las Vegas is in California, and what's more, New Orleans roads are in Wisconsin.) Has anyone been tackling these "by hand", and if so, could they comment on where to go from here with these? If it comes to deleting them all and starting again, then so be it. Alai 23:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, September 2006

[edit] {{Chicano-stub}} / Cat:Mexican-American stubs

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.

This was sent to SFD with no consensus. [11] ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, October 2006

[edit] Cat:Ancient Roman building stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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 delete
Not proposed that I recall, distinctly undersized. Alai 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It was proposed and was roundly rejected, IIRC. Buildings are categorised by current location, and this cuts across that. There is nothing wrong with double-stubbing with currentcountry-struct-stub and Ancient-Rome-stub. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
On that basis, I've double-upmerged the template. Alai 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And was "minor edit, no edit summary" reverted for my trouble. To which add, many more such. Perhaps a case for SFD sooner rather than later. Alai 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
How can it be double upmerged anyway? Not all ancient Roman buildings are in Rome, or even in Italy. BTW, I note that the template is -arch- stub, which is incorrect. if kept as a type it should be changed to -struct- stub, since it's not for architectural features, but is for buildings (well, buildings and structures), which is yet another problem with it. The whole thing's a bit of a mess. SFD sooner is a very good idea. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
To Cat:Ancient Rome stubs and Cat:European building and structure stubs, on the basis of the rogue cat's supercategories. Mind you, they're not even all in Europe, either. Alai 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem's a hell of a lot worse than we thought - Cat:Ancient Rome stubs has ten subcategories! Not sure how many of them were proposed, but I'd doubt it would be more than two or three I've taken three to SFD that I know go strongly against stub convention (including this one), but this looks very messy. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hence the above contribs link. Alai 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I've caught the lot... Grutness...wha? 00:46, 14 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.

[edit] Various geo-stub templates

Since I've been proposing the introduction of upmerged geo-stub templates for everywhere with 40 or more stubs, the afore-hinted-at I*st*ntn**d decided to go one stage further, and has created simiular upmerged templates for several other places:

All keepers, I suppose, but they stuff up all the counts I've been doing, and all of them need to be tidied to the same standard as the others. Sigh. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newly discovered, December 2006

[edit] Another looming iceberg

We really should keep a closer eye on Special:New pages. i've just gone through the last week's worth of template creations and discovered quite a number of previously unknown stub types (as well as speedying a couple of re-creations). Several of these discoveries I'm taking straight to SFD, but these two warrant a mention here instead. NOTE - These are ones I've discovered just going back to the beginning of the month - 18 days of new pages. Lord knows how many stub types are out there now - about time someone did another full sweep...:

[edit] {{Massachusetts-gov-stub}}

...and its related category. The first state-specific gov-stub, and with about 20 stubs. Conceivably could get to 60, but it sets a precedent we should consider before we start on - do we want another 49 of these? Grutness...wha? 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of one who is focusing his work on a state Government & Politcs Workgroup (Oregon), I find the estimate to be low, especially at the beginning. Most of the American state wikigroups, if they have yet divided the work into workgroups, start by combining government and politics (as did California, and we are following their lead). This places all elective offices, government agencies (statewide and regional), political parties (including the minors), contentious ballot measures, and a raft of other categories within their scope. On our project, article development seems to start with production of lists, which are then de-redlinked to stubs, which gradually are developed into articles. Our subgroup has already identified 34 stubs we want to tag in order to better track, and are producing at least a couple of new ones on a daily basis. Perhaps the need will be eliminated by broader implementation of esoteric features in the project banners, but that is a ways off, and in the meantime I, for one, am feeling that our project's work is being impeded by having to spend so much time doing frequent searches and maintaining manually generated lists. My two cents (and made with admitted ignorance of potential stub-sorting ramifications). -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that th federal system used in the US does make it more rather than less likely that these are populable. Given the proposal for an Oregon-gov-stub at WP:WSS/P, perhaps this is a split worth considering after all... Grutness...wha? 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Nebraska-Highways-stub}}

Ugly plural, to start with, and only seven stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{medieval-armour-stub}} / Cat:Medieval armour stubs

This just appeared on WP:STUBS. Horribly small as well as being unproposed. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Might be worth upmerging to an {{armor-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You beat me to it - I've just left a note with the creator of this one. BTW, although the main category is medieval armor (and only just scrapes over the 70 article mark, BTW), most of the articles in it that specify use the term 'armour" - which makes sense, since the US didn't actually have any medieval armor, and all other English speaking countries with the possible exception of Canada use the -ou- spelling. Perhaps if armor-stub is made a redirect is also a good idea? Grutness...wha? 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As the creator of the stub, I'd like to comment. Sorry, I didn't know that there was a specific procedure for creating new stubs. I was just being bold. Reading over the relevant procedures, it seems to me that the purpose of sorting stubs is to attract experts in the field. There are few, if any, experts in "armor", and a general military expert usually won't have a detailed understanding of medieval armor. There are plenty of organizations of expert individuals that study medieval armor specifically, and there isn't another stub category close enough to attract these experts. Perhaps a "medieval military equipment" stub would suffice, as there is a fair bit of intellectual crosspollination between medieval armour and weapons, but I really think that the current system of lumping them into a military category is insufficient. Addressing the point of spelling, I've been poking about trying to correct that, along with a few other problems. --Eyrian 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • A mediaeval armour and weaponry stub might be a reasonable compromise - not sure how weapons are currently split, though (anyone?). BTW, as for WP:BOLD, I hope you note that that page makes it clear it is for editing articles but not templates or categories! Grutness...wha? 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Cat:Weapons is split on five axes: type, user, target, origin, and era. However we've been splitting weapon stubs only by type so far. Still, a {{melee-weapon-stub}} → Cat:Mêlée weapon stubs → Cat:Mêlée weapons should be able to narrow down the field of weaponry considerably for the Medievalists to sort through. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Calgary-stub}} / Cat:Calgary stubs

Well formed stub type with all of 5 stubs at present, but the potential for quite a few more. {{Alberta-geo-stub}} is nearing the point where it needs splitting, so a {{Calgary-geo-stub}} looks like a possibility in the near future. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Alberta-road-stub}} / Cat:Alberta road stubs

I'll take half credit for this one. I created the template to help see what splits of Cat:Canada road stubs might be viable, since a current SFD indicated that there were some who were finding it a bit overlarge, but before I even finished looking through it, someone else helpfully created the category. 64 stubs at present, so it's marginally viable, as should be a {{NovaScotia-road-stub}} and a {{Quebec-road-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Yeast-stub}}, Cat:Yeast stubs

Not proposed, no wikiproject (not directly, anyway - it seems to be connected in some way with WP Microbiology), 16 stubs only - and Cat:Yeasts only has 26 articles, so unlikely to get within a bull's roar of 60 current stubs. Fungus stubs probably could do with a split, but this doesn't look like the way to do it. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Aelfthrytha 12:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Erinaceomorpha-stub}} / Cat:Erinaceomorpha stubs

Never proposed. Only one article, the same one which is the entire population of Cat:Erinaceomorphs. Somehow, this seems unlikely to reach threshold any time soon. Note that there are other erinaceidae in Cat:Insectivora stubs - but that category only has 70-odd stubs. Mind you, it may need looking at at some point, since the term insectivore seems to be evolving with time. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Insectivora is no longer to be used... it is a defunct taxonomic order. Erinaceomorpha and Soricomorpha replace it. I'm working on the Erinoceomorpha articles, and the stub and template are part of that. I will be moving the articles as appropriate. It will reach threshold very soon, as all of the articles in the Insectivora categories will be moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Didn't we just approve {{insectivora-stub}} and Cat:insectivora stubs? Why didn't we know it was defunct? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This information was added to the Insectivora article yesterday (see [12]). Eli Falk 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
UtherSRG gives the source for this change as a book published in mid-November. Category:Insectivora stubs was created within a month of that date. The sites linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life all claim that Insectivora is a valid taxon. Eli Falk 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
MSW3 was published November of 2005. As for the resources listed on WP:TOL: NCBI is not to be used as a taxonomy authority; ToL Web is, like Wikipedia, updated at the whim of its maintainers and currently lists other orders previously removed from Insectivora as still being within Insectivora; Mikko's shows Erin. and Soric. as being orders within Insectivora (by their names) and was last updated just as MSW3 was being published; BIOSIS also lists a previously removed order as still being within Insectivora; System Natura lists Erin. and Soric. as orders and that Insectivora has been replaced by Grandorder Lipotyphla; ITIS lists Erin. and Soric. as orders, and Insectivora as invalid, replaced by Erin., Soric., and Afrosoricida; Species2000 lists other orders previously removed from Insectivora as still being within Insectivora; ADW is likewise out of date on their tree structure. Insectivora, as an order, is defunct. It, or a senior synonym such as Lipotyphla, can be used as a higher level intermediary taxon, but the majority of mammal stub categories are based upon major taxa, not intermediaries. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)/Log/2007/January Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)/Log/2007/February Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)/Log/2007/March

pl:Wikiprojekt:Sortowanie stubów/Odkryte zalążki

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Stub_sorting_Criteria_%28all%29_1f8f.html"
In other languages