Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/February

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)

• support Most of stub level articles on power plants are about U.S. or Australian power plants. {{powerstation-stub}} would cover all other countries and will have subcategories of {{Australia-powerstation-stub}} and {{US-powerstation-stub}}? Beagel 16:51, 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.

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)
  • I'm having a little problem understanding the grouping... What's the perm cat for {{powerline-stub}}? Monni 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The permcat for {{powerline-stub}} would be Category:Electric power transmission systems which has no close ancestor that it shares with Category:Pipelines unfortunately. Might be worth putting a bug in the ear of WikiProject Energy about the category structure, or failing action, being bold. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There is a risk that with little rescoping, {{powerline-stub}} would be viable on own... Cat:Electric power is parent of both Cat:Electric power transmission systems and newly proposed Cat:Power stations stub type. Monni 12:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I hope {{powerline-stub}} will cover by definition also (submarine) power cables?Beagel 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I think we should scope it so large that it would have those 60 articles required for own stub category. I also think we should decide first if we need to adjust the permanent categories before deciding final stub name(s) and scope. I have no objections having {{powerline-stub}} upmerged to some actual well-defined parent stub category that also has well-defined permanent category. Monni 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't see any reason that undersea cables wouldn't count as power lines. They're lines that transport power, after all. In fact at least one of the ones I mentioned above (the NZ one) is an undersea cable. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Since Category:Submarine power cables is a subcategory of Category:Electric power transmission systems, the permacats agree with your opinion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:41, 27 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

• I think needs better name to conform guidelines. Is there 60 stubs? Monni 12:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we already have what it takes: {{Korea-hist-stub}} and {{Korea-bio-stub}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:39, 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.

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 {{screen-writer-stub}} Support {{film-editor-stub}} only if there are already 60+ such items ..agree with Pegship. Goldenrowley 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• 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.

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:

• {{environment-stub}} 2
• {{environmental-org-stub}} 9
• {{waste-stub}} 1

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.

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.

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.

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:

• Cat:American screen actor, 1940s birth stubs 68
• Cat:American screen actor, 1950s birth stubs 80
• Cat:American screen actor, 1960s birth stubs 80
• Cat:American screen actor, 1970s birth stubs 100
• Cat:American screen actor, 1980s birth stubs 60

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 existing stubs for tv and film already do. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:25, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The result of the debate was create

• Cat:drama television character stubs 190
• Cat:comedy television character stubs 107
• Cat:sitcom character stubs 97
• Cat:children's television character stubs 75

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.

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.

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.

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: [2]
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[3] 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)

• Support as revised so McCandlish can get on with his/her life. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:45, 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.

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.

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)

• {{business-software-stub}} → Cat:Business software stubs → Cat:Business software
• {{simulation-software-stub}} → Cat:Simulation software stubs → Cat:Simulation software
• {{compu-library-stub}} → Cat:Computer library stubs → Cat:Computer libraries

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,

• Cat:Business software 156
• Cat:Science software 128
• Cat:Text editors 77
• Cat:Music software 53
• Cat:Graphics software 50

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:

• {{programming-software-stub}} → Cat:Computer programming tool stubs → Cat:Computer programming tools
• {{music-software-stub}} → Cat:Music software stubs → Cat:Music software (speediable on the basis of the earlier proposal)

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.

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.