Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Actor of (Country) stubs

As pointed out, the Category:People stubs has gotten enormous, and now the Category:Actor stubs has grown to 6 pages (1000-1200 stubs). Instead of people sorting to the "general actor" category, we should probably start subdivisions to sort into. Sarah has already begun the Category:American_actor_stubs. Rather than proposing each country individually here, perhaps we can have a period of blanket approval for the creation of "Actor of (Country) stub" categories & templates ... provided that people add the new categories to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types around the time they create these. What do you think? Courtland 13:01, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Go for it, I'd say, along with a suggestion, based on my work at splitting up geo-stub. Although it may sound like a lot of work, it's worth making a small spreadsheet listing all the article names alongside what country the person comes from first. That does several things:
  1. It lets you know which countries really need a separate category
  2. It lets you see whether several countries can be easily grouped together (e.g., Africa-actor-stub, Balkans-actor-stub)
  3. It's very handy if you simply want to cut and paste the new template - you can do all of the articles relating to one country together.
  4. It enables you to roughly keep track of what (and how many) new articles appear.
Also a general comment - with both this and the bio-stubs, it's probably worth keeping the same country name or abbreviation as used in other stubs, rather than, say, having Bos-bio-stub for Bosnians and BiH-geo-stub for places in Bosnia. Not that I'd expect you'd need more than, say, US, UK, Canada, Japan, India, Australia, and Euro for actors anyway.... Grutness|hello? 07:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • After having collected ~180 items into the suggested spreadsheet (that takes me to the middle of the J's in Category:Actor stubs) the only new stub that seems justified is the {{UK-actor-stub}}, which will account for ~30% of those not yet moved out of Actor-stub (as far as I've gotten). Courtland 02:50, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • for a view of the distribution of Actor stubs that do not fit either US-actor-stub or UK-actor-stub see User:Ceyockey/Actor_stub_census. Courtland 03:44, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
    • Would a {{Euro-actor-stub}} be appropriate? There seem to be enough of them - UK actor stubs could maybe be a subcategory of it. Other than that, Japan and Canada (the latter including Quebec) would be the only possible starters (remembering that a lot of bio-stubs may well be hidden actor-stubs). Grutness|hello? 07:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History stub sifting

Having started on the process of looking at history stubs, I can see several different ways to proceed which seem at odds with each other. There's sorting by period, by location, and by type of event/subject. Each of them has their merit, and there are some possibilities already clear in each type.

By period
  • {{Mediaeval-stub}} and {{WWII-stub}} both lap out as prime candidates here. Both would be well populated and would appeal to one type of editor.
  • These would fall in line with Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt quite well, although it could be argued that they are equally location stubs.
By location
  • {{Africa-history-stub}}, {{UK-history-stub}} and {{Far-East-history-stub}} are all fine possibilities.
  • These are compatible with the extant US-history, Russian-history and East-Slavic-history stubs
    • {{UK-hist-stub}}(rather than -history-) was made. I agree that the other two would be useful too. Grutness...wha? 08:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
By subject type
  • {{mediaeval-bio-stub}}, {{ancient-bio-stub}}, {{battle-stub}}, {{royalty-stub}}... all would be well populated
  • against this is the fact that bio-stubs need work separately. The listed bio-stub varieties could well be useful with that. I suspect that all of these could be part of a double-stubbing arrangement.
these don't seem to be at odds with each other, I don't see why they couldn't all be created. Really, the more semi-specific type stubs we have, the easier it will be to keep them down to a manageable size. *Kat* 06:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible schema

At the moment, I sway towards the following schema, although it's very tentative, and any thoughts and suggestions are very greatly welcomed. The following are all possibles, although only a few may be needed to reduce hist-stub to a reasonable size.

Any thoughts on any or all of these? Or is this all getting too complex? Grutness|hello? 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after 24 hours of thought, I'm probably making it all too complex. Removing the bio-stubs and US-hist-stubs from history-stub will probably reduce it considerably anyway - after that I'll have a look through what's left over. However, two of these look like definite starters - {{UK-hist-stub}} and {{WWII-stub}} and - unless there's good reasons not to - I'll set about starting those in a few days' time. Grutness|hello?

Three new historical stubs have been created (WWII, WWI, UK-hist) - see note here Grutness|hello? 00:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those history stub proposals seem like a good idea, and I support the creation of all of them, but I think that there is a need for more event-oriented stubs, such as {{battle stub}}. *Kat* 07:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Mm. Maybe. The reason I opted to divided it up by time and place rather than type of item is that I suspect that if you're loking for someone to edit articles on African battles, you're more likely to find that someone who knows about African history can do the task, rather than someone who knows about, say American Civil War battles. So it would make more sense to put battles into whatever area they relate to, rather than having a separate category just for battles (the same principle applies to treaties, which would be the other obvious thing to split off if we were going to split it that way). Also, if you split things by date or by place, you can cover pretty much everything, whereas if you split off battles and treaties and, say, discoveries and inventions, you'd be left with a lot of uncategorised history articles that might be harder to put somewhere useful. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2stub

Template:2stub found this stub... not linked or anything. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • seems to be an interesting attempt to get around double stubbing. I suspect it would be much harder to use in practice though; if the names of all the stub categories conformed to some pattern it might work, but it's hard enough remembering the names of all the stubs, let alone learning all the (often much more complex) category names! Erm... should this one be listed in this section, though? Grutness|hello? 05:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{euro-royal-stub}}

This one was suggested after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting. For all those European Kings, Queens, Archdukes and the like that used to be in hist-stub but are now cluttering up bio-stub. There must be close on 500 of them, at a rough guess... Grutness|hello? 13:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Lots o' minor earls and dukes to sort. Putting them in one place would facilitate that.A2Kafir 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Plus, some people LOVE that stuff, and they might spend all day finishing the articles if they were all grouped in one place.A2Kafir

There is already the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, which is for UK royalty and peers, plus there is the {{peer-stub}}, along with Category:Peerage stubs (as a subcategory of Category:British people stubs). That category currently has 180 articles. The main page for the WikiProject doesn't look like much, but the talk page is very active.

I was surprised that there was no Royalty WikiProject to cover all the other royalty, although Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) seems to be the major place for discussion of all things royal. I was thinking that there might be enough royalty stubs to actually have stubs for a few countries like France, but with only 149 articles in Category:French people stubs, it doesn't look like that is true (unless someone starts translating a bunch of French royalty stubs from the French Wikipedia).

Without a specific Royalty WikiProject, perhaps the articles are best left as bio-stubs under their respective countries. BlankVerse ∅ 06:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Bio-stub is very large (far larger than Category:Stub!) Making making a euro-royal subcategory of it will at least take a huge number out of the main list and put them where people who do know about such things can get at them. In any case, there's nothing wroing with double stubbing, in the same way that, say a Japanese writer might get both writer-stub and the new Japan-bio-stub. If it turns out that a lot of the royals are from one particular country, then a subcat would be no problem. As to france-bio, remember that it's still a fairly new subdivision, and quite a few of us are still so busy sorting the mainstub category that we simply haven't got round to bio-stub yet (it's next...)! Grutness|hello? 06:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Grutness. This would be a good way to empty out {{bio-stub}} of minor royals of any nation (there are more than any of us can imagine; all those little German states,....). Maybe it should be just {{royal-stub}} to cover worldwide royals (or pretenders). Then a royal can be double-tagged to indicate nationality. A2Kafir 23:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Euro-royal-stub}} has been created. I'm not entirely convinced by the wording, but it was the best I could come up with to cover both the royals themselves and Dukes, Counts and the like. Grutness|hello? 14:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

...and euro-royal-stub has been changed to a redirect! See notes below under Euro-noble-stub. Grutness...wha? 03:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{world-royal-stub}} (*created as {{Noble-stub}})

There are plenty of stubs on non-European royalty and nobility, in bio-stub and elsewhere. Why should there only be euro-royal-stub? Alternatively, this could just be called royal-stub.--Pharos 18:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

royal-stub would probably be a better name, to keep it in line with other stubs. We don't have world-bio-stub or world-geo-stub, and if necessary this could later be broken down in exactly the same format as other region related stubs (Africa-royal-stub, Japan-royal-stub, etc). Grutness...wha? 08:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with your reasoning, "world" is unnecessary. I see that User:Oven Fresh has created a {{monarch-stub}} and made {{royal-stub}} as a redirect to it, but I'm not so sure about the lack of naming consistency with euro-royal-stub.--Pharos 15:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Monarch-stub would be a subcategory of royal-stub, if such a thing was needed (notall royalty are monarchs - Prince Charles and Princess Anne are obvious counter-examples). Please also note discussion below on the differences between royals and nobles, and problems the concatenation of the two may cause. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Given the clear problems that have developed with royal-stubs in general, perhaps this should be named {{noble-stub}}. It's probably also worth considering whether monarch-stub still seems such a good idea... Grutness...wha? 05:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree; let's rename this to noble-stub and and get rid of monarch-stub. I think the wording and definition should be along the lines of "monarch, royal or noble" - all three should be combined in this and the more specific euro-noble-stub etc.--Pharos 08:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Update: I've created {{noble-stub}}, and {{monarch-stub}} is now a redirect to it. Once it's emptied, I'll move Category:Monarch stubs to cfd. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{euro-noble-stub}}

At the suggestion of Grutness, I've wandered over here to explain the mess I've made and why I did it. I feel that "euro-royal-stub" should not be used to encompass European nobility, as the two terms do not refer to the same people. I understand the desire to avoid conflation, but nobles are not royals and they really don't belong in the same category. I understand that they appear similar, and that those of you doing the re-stubbing (which is a wonderful and valuable effort) might have difficulty telling the difference. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask that the distinction be made. I'd also like to suggest that you poke Adam Bishop about which monarchs, historically, should be called "European" monarchs. He has some concerns. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, certainly all nobles are not royals. The point is that these should be under a common rubric; many stub markers (for example rocket-stub which deals with space exploration in general and bank-stub, which deals with all sorts of financial institutions) are not limited to a strict definition of the word in their title. If we artificially divide what is essentially one topic here, then this only unnecessarily increases the complexity of the stub system and sets an unfortunate precedent for overparsing and multiplication of stub markers.
Would euro-noble-stub be preferable as a catch-all marker? Not all monarchs have been nobles before their accession, but certainly by many definitions the institution of monarchy itself is part of (indeed the paramount institution of) the system of nobility.--Pharos 03:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
That would be far superior, yes. I grant that splitting the categories would be laborious. Most monarchs that I know of were noble by some definition. I would be more than content with that. Mackensen (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
In that case, may I propose making {{euro-royal-stub}} a redirect to {{euro-noble-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 08:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't see any problem with that. Also, two related things: members of the British nobility (the peerage) have thir own place ({{peer-stub}}), but we don't put people with life peerages there, as they really aren't nobles. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Mmm. good point. Actually, it would make sense if {{peer-stub}} was renamed to {{UK-noble-stub}}, with peer-stub as a redirect. It would be more consistent naming. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree; these related stub types should be named (and defined) as consistently as possible.--Pharos 08:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: {{Euro-royal-stub}} now redirects to {{Euro-noble-stub}}, and the wording has been changed fractionally so that peer-stub (under a new name) can be a subcategory of it. For the next few days it means that peer-stub will contain a few oddities (Mercian Kings, for instance), but it will all make sense when a new name goes through. About to make a few null-edits... Grutness...wha? 09:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

OK - {{peer-stub}} now redirects to {{UK-noble-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 10:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Hallucinogen-stub}}

just created it, but i'll wait for approval before using it. For stubs relating to hallucinogens following the creation of the WikiProject on Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics, a sort-of descendant project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs. --Heah 22:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No-one seems to have objected, so go ahead! :) Grutness...wha? 03:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation proposal: Lutheran-stub

  • There are many of us working on various articles related to Lutheranism, such as instutions, former church bodies, synods, etc. The christianity-stub is too broad. There is a Roman Catholic stub. As Lutherans are the largest Protestant group in the world and also the oldest (depending on how you count the followers of Hus) this would be very helpful. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Mmm - that category probably does need breaking down a little - but would a more generic protestant-stub be a better way to go about this? Or is that still too broad a division? (Come to think of it, are there also enough for a separate orthodox-stub?) Grutness...wha? 07:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Lutherans do not always like the term "Protestant", as it is often used generically and lumps Lutherans in with groups like Pentecostalists and Baptists with which we have little in common. In fact, a recent trend is Lutherans rejecting the idea of Protestantism and instead considering themselves as a reform group within the catholic Church (little c). It would be more appropriate to have a separate stub for Lutherans articles. EdwinHJ | Talk 20:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, since there don't seem to have been any objections, I've created {{Lutheran-stub}}. Enjoy! Grutness...wha? 04:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs, unite

Ok there are god knows how many country stubs. I can do all of that with one template, use it with care.

{{GCS|Cuba}}:Template:GCS

{{GenericCountryStub|France}}:Template:GenericCountryStub

[edit] Update

Minor issue with countries that have a different name for images and different name for their articles. (only a few has this problem)

{{GCSD|Us|United States}}:Template:GCSD

{{GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}}:Template:GenericCountryStubDetail --Cool Cat My Talk 03:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

bear in mind that this is just a geo stub. It could be altered slighty to meet other stubs such as Biographies etc... --Cool Cat My Talk 21:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Please no - this new stub is already causing problems (as listed below under "newly discovered templates") and will be more work in the long run than the current system, and more work for the editors on an item by item basis. Let's take the three examples you've listed above. Under the current system, a regular editor keeps "{{-geo-stub}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean", "France" or "US". Under the proposed system, s/he keeps "{{GCS}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean|Cuba", "France" or "US|United States". It only takes a few articles for the work to have greatly increased. The casual editor still has to know the names of the categories, so it won't improve their lot either (in fact, they too will have to type more). And every time a new geo-stub category is created, a little more tweaking of the system will be required. What's worse, this template would ideally be on all the geostubs - a distinct case of template/server overload. And all of them would have an icon, leading to even more server trouble. Grutness|hello? 01:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{GCS}} and {{GenericCountryStub}}

User:Coolcat has just created template:GCS and template:GenericCountryStub

{{GCS|Cuba}}

Template:GCS

{{GenericCountryStub|France}}

Template:GenericCountryStub

Template:GenericCountryStub calls Template:GenericCountryStubDetail (which also has a redirect from Template:GCSD). This design assumes that all France stubs are in Category:France stubs, rather than Category:France-related stubs (and doesn't take into account that there are other country stubs that are not neatly named). He's even added to one article (Jinetera).

In checking the Jintera article, I ended up discovering that when User:Rdsmith4 created the template:cuba-stub, that he created neither a category:Cuba stubs (which template is currently designed for) nor a category:Cuba-related stubs. Do we need to check all the stubs not created by WP:WSS to verify that a category was created? BlankVerse ∅ 03:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wahooboy we're going to lose a lot of stubs into the void this way quickly! There are about 100 countries which do not have generic stub categories, for the simple reason that the countries have not got enough stubs. If it were possible to vote "even-faster-than-speedy delete" on this one I would. Grutness|hello? 05:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: As you can see by the too verbose TFD templates that have been added, all of these templates, subtemplates, and redirects have now been nominated at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 06:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

FURTHER NOTE: As you can also see by those splashes of blood-like red above, they have now been deleted! Grutness...wha? 12:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A need for genre specific book stubs

[edit] {{fantasy-book-stub}} *created*

[edit] {{scifi-book-stub}}*created as {{sf-book-stub}} - {{nonfiction-book-stub}} also created*


I believe you mean {{sf-book-stub}}, to fit in with the current {{sf-stub}} (especially since many people "in the know" see the term "sci-fi" as derogatory). I'd agree that fantasy, sf, and children's books probably all do warrant separate subcategories, as does non-fiction (maybe {{fact-book-stub}}?) Grutness...wha? 07:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that {{nonfiction-book-stub}} would probably be more intuitive. the phrase "fact book" brings to mind almanacs, and DYK type books.*Kat* 03:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm. You're right. I was thinking of length for ease of use, but nonfiction-book-stub would be better. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
How about {{nonfic-stub}} as a redirect? *Kat*
I'll leave the redirect for now (the less of them the better. really), but I will add nonfiction-book-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More subcategories of {{struct-stub}} (*all three created)

There are 300-400 Struct-stubs. Of them, about 140 are in Asia, and nearly 80 are in Canada. Also, there are between 300 and 400 Euro-struct-stubs, of which about 100 are in Germany. Therefore, I’d like to propose {{Asia-struct-stub}}, {{Canada-struct-stub}}, and {{Germany-struct-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 08:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: All three created. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{UK-comics-stub}}

After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics I'd like to propose UK-comics-stub. There are over 400 stubs in Category:Comics stubs, and a rough count leads me to believe there are exactly 100 comic stubs of UK relevance. Amongst entries are:

Hiding 09:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Once the DC and Marvel comics were removed from the category, I had a suspicion that the next largest group would be the British ones. Sounds fair, and - since there's a WikiProject working on these things - not a bad idea at all. Grutness...wha?
  • Created--Hiding 13:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] {{web-stub}}

I moved this discussion from "Newly-discovered stub categories" to this section to reflect a proposal I'd like to make. Rx StrangeLove 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

"This article is an internet-related stub." Could be actually quite useful, but feeds into Category:Stub and was never listed here or anywhere else... 3 pages have it, created on May 7 by User:Stevertigo. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. sounds quite similar to website-stub, but perhaps not, since that is largely for individual websites... for the sake of uniformity, it should probably be compu-web-stub, but it does sound useful... Grutness...wha? 05:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if internet-stub might be a better name, I've felt the need for something a little more general than website-stub for stubs involving email, usenet, general internet concepts like e-commerce, surfing and the like. Whatever it's name I think it's a very useful suggestion as I've had to get out the shoe-horn to make some stubs fit into the website-stub. I think the Internet is a big enough concept to break out of the compu-XXX-stub scheme but either way I'm all for it. It looks to me like the web-stub feeds into website-stub category, might be easiest to give it's own category. Rx StrangeLove 00:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to propose this change, either use web-stub and create a internet related category for it, or delete it and create a internet-stub (or compu-internet-stub). I think there's more then enough internet related stubs outside of strictly web sites to justify it. Thoughts? Rx StrangeLove 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
This could easily cover everything that is not a websites (notably internet memes). All it needs is a cat to fo in business. Circeus 03:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Um - this has actually had a dedicated category for a couple of days (Category:WWW stubs - I created that when I was trying to fix a lot of problem stub categories on Thursday and Friday). If you want to change it around to something new, though, feel free. Grutness...wha? 07:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually there wasn't. When I moved this here and made the proposal there wasn't a dedicated category. Rx StrangeLove 14:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
OK - apologies - it was a little over a day rather than a couple of days. About two hours after you moved this here and suggested changing it, but before I'd checked this page for the day. As I said, though, if you think it would be better as something other than what it is currently, go ahead. Grutness...wha? 14:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{explosive-stub}}

This would help clear out the thirty or so explosives-related stubs that are currently in {{chem-stub}}, and maybe let explosives experts blow them up a bit... Physchim62 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I like it. Boom! A2Kafir 16:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Either of the images on the page about explosions would be a good one for the template.A2Kafir 16:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good, but - only 30 stubs? Grutness...wha? 07:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

I've been poking in the huge mega-{{bio-stub}} area, and I've noticed many articles on Polish people. I think this would help clear out the generic bios a bit. Joyous 23:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think that - now that Category:Stub is largely under control, the bio-stubs are the next big problem. And breaking out a few nationalities is not going to hurt. Poland, Spain, China, Italy... they all look viable. As long as they keep the same format (xx-bio-stub to match things like xx-geo-stub) there shouldn't be any real problem. Hm. Someone must be archiving - I'm having the devil's own job finding the right section! Grutness...wha? 01:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I've already collected 40 Polish-bio stubs after a very speedy glance at the most stereotypical Polish-sounding names in letters a-c. Joyous 03:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Done. And I might propose some of the others I mentioned, too. Grutness...wha? 12:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Kazakh-stub}}

I created this stub template for the Culture of Kazakhstan article. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I only just now learned that stubs should be discussed before put in articles, is that correct? So I temporarily removed the stub from the article until we discussed it here. Is it official policy to discuss stubs here? Also, is the size of the Kazakhstan flag on the stub okay? Revolución 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm going to put the stub back on the Culture of Kazakhstan article. Is that okay? Nobody seems to have answered. Revolución 00:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Possibly no-one answered because we were looking for other stubs that could use this template (normally you need 60-100 to even consider creating a new category). I for one couldn't find any. Still, it's here now, so you may as well use it (even though the article could just as easily have used {{culture-stub}}). Grutness...wha? 08:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As for the flag size, I think most stubs/templates the pixel size of the flag to be between 20-30 pixels. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{ship-stub}} and {{warship-stub}} {{mil-ship-stub}}

These would be used for specific ships and would clean out a lot of stuff from {{naval-stub}} and {{water-stub}}. A2Kafir 18:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

why not {{ship-stub}} and {{mil-ship-stub}}, to allow for naval ships that are not actually warships? Grutness...wha? 00:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Good call; mil-ship would cover stuff like cargo vessels, troop transports, oilers, etc.....A2Kafir 14:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I like mil-ship-stub better than warship-stub as well. Courtland 17:53, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • I'll head off a question that might turn up ... where would Coast Guard vessels go (proposing ship-stub)? Where would Naval Reserve vessels go (proposing mil-ship-stub)? If a ship was military ship and has been decommissioned then recommissioned for civilian service, where would that go (proposing ship-stub)? Is the distinction between military and non-military clear in all countries, or will some present special problems (e.g. state-owned vessels that are used for non-military purposes but which have been or can be pressed into military service) (this one doesn't really need to be answered now, I think)? Courtland 17:59, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
Mmmm. And river police, as well. It might be a grey area, but we have grey areas in other categories, too. I think that most ships would be clearly military or non-military. Any borderline ones, just dealing with them on a case-by-case basis will probably be OK. Grutness...wha?
Sounds good. Go go go... Courtland 19:04, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

[edit] Computer graphics stubs

I have found a fair number of computer graphics stubs on {{compu-stub}}, and there are also some of them on {{compu-sci-stub}}. I propose creating a {{compu-graphics-stub}} for them. --cesarb 02:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Created. --cesarb 23:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)