Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive18

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was sfd supernatural and cryptozoology

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

I discovered this redirect to {{US-bio-stub}} whilst sorting through that category. Was used on 9 stubs, about half being Czech-Americans which makes some sense since {{Czech-bio-stub}} is an exception to our usual stub template naming rules of using country name rather than country adjective. Have either sent them all to a subtype or {{US-bio-stub}}. No strong opinion on whether to keep as a redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Having rediscovered this, I'm going to send it to SFD for an authoritative decision as to whether it should be kept or not. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

I created these about five minutes before realizing there was a process I should have followed for proposing them. They are in connection with a new college football wikiproject. I hope you will forgive my ignorance and accept this stub/cat. BigDT 03:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This seems to have been miraculously added to the stub-type list in the last few hours. No idea whether it would be useful... perhaps a "wait and see"? Grutness...wha? 06:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge

14 entrants. Poorly named template - should be Russia-university-stub. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete, upmerge, only 67 articles in non-stub category. Monni 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• rename. Should be Russia-university-stub. Russia has lots of universities that do not yet have articles, so this stub would be useful if someone wante to create a stub for each of them. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• "rename" "keep". I would find this stub helpful, as the official wording may not be generally known. --DGG 23:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge and rename. Should follow the standard name guidelines like all similar templates. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Created 13 August without a proposal. The cat probably should be Cat:Lithuanian music stubs. It currently only has 9 articles. --Bruce1ee 08:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• speedy rename Monni 10:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This one is not only way too small, but it completely breaks through the category system. {{Music-stub}} has no country-specific children at all, these articles are sorted by genre. Brucelee, I believe you were thinking about the templates for musical bands. In that case, it should have been {{Lithuania-band-stub}} and Cat:Lithuanian musical group stubs, but this template was used on less than 10 articles, two of them were clearly not stubs, I'll say three more probably aren't either, and this template is used on articles not only articles on bands but also on composers. On the positive side, I like the image of Čiurlionis, but it is little comfort, and I find it somewhat confusing seing it on articles about rock music. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We do have {{china-music-stub}} so your point is kinda on thin ice... Monni 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Remember that {{china-music-stub}} was never proposed and discussed. But I think {{Lithuania-music-stub}} should be deleted as it is hopelessly under populated. Valentinian, I was alerted to this one because its parent stub cat is Cat:Musical group stubs, which is not correct as it also contains musicians and composers. --Bruce1ee 08:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It was discussed about but not proposed. If no-one objects, it means there is a certain consensus. Consensus is one of the main pillars in Wikipedia. Also fixing (or reparenting) is better choice than deleting. Not to mention this and {{china-music-stub}} could be precedents for combining bands and musicians when there isn't enough to justify two stubs for them. From another point of view, this style of category is parent category for bands and musicians. Monni 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• I would not mind it being deleted. Renata 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds like we have enough of an assortment of views here that SFR/SFD would be appropriate. Even the rename could be quibbled with, as the permcat use a mixture of "Music of Noun" and "Adjectival music", and some would insist that the latter not be in the form "Adjective music stubs". But mainly, not much point in renaming if it's to be deleted. Alai 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Indian classical music stub template and category created 5 August without a proposal. Currently has 16 stub articles. --Bruce1ee 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

...and a lousy name! at the very least it needs a hiphen. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 11:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe even an hyphen! This should probably go to SFD, if for nothing else other than a rename. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

delete too small, missing hyphen. Monni 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Feeds into Cat:American football stubs. Used on more than 100 articles, but that's incredibly skewed. There are articles tagged with the one tag as well as another American football tag. Besides, the parent category is in no need of any sort of sorting. Unless someone can think of something really big that I'm forgetting, I'm thinking I should be taking this one to SfD. --fuzzy510 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... It may be a result of this discussion, but I'm not sure. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 02:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was, there doesn't seem to be any sort of mention of a generic college football stub. If anything, this only strengthens the argument for deletion I think, since there was stong opposition to a generic college football biography stub type. --fuzzy510 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

This has been newly created without any discussion - and since internet-stub has fewer than 200 articles, it's hardly a necessary split. The category's a redlink, too. The same person who made this has been making a raft of poorly named redirects - have a look at the load here, which include such nonsense as redirecting "British-X" to "England-X". Looks like a mass SFD may be in order! Grutness...wha? 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep moon-stub and mars-stub, rename exoplanet to extrasolar-planet, do not create others, all remaining go to SFD

Have a look at the stub-type list, and you will see a huge load of new unproposed stub types relating to the planets of the Solar System, some ready-created, some obviously planned for creation:

• Planet stubs {{Planet-stub}} - ? on October 24
• Terrestrial planet stubs {{Terrestrialplanet-stub}} - ? on October 24
  • Mercury stubs {{Mercury-stub}} - ? on October 24
  • Venus stubs {{Venus-stub}} - ? on October 24
  • Craters on Mars stubs {{MarsCrater-stub}} - ? on October 24
• Giant planet stubs {{Giantplanet-stub}} - ? on October 24
  • Jupiter stubs {{Jupiter-stub}} - ? on October 24
  • Saturn stubs {{Saturn-stub}} - ? on October 24
  • Uranus stubs {{Uranus-stub}} - ? on October 24
  • Neptune stubs {{Neptune-stub}} - ? on October 24
• Dwarf planet stubs {{Dwarfplanet-stub}} - ? on October 24

One or two of these might reach a reasonable threshold level, but the chances of them all doing so are nil. Given that there are fewer than 100 Mars stubs, for instance, there is absolutely no need for a (badly named) {{MarsCrater-stub}} and "Craters on Mars stubs" (which should probably be {{Mars-crater-stub}} and "Martian crater stubs"). Neither is there need for separate planet, terrestrial planet and giant planet stubs, especially if the plan behind these new creations is for a separate stub type for each planet. Most of these should go to sfd, though a simplified scheme with two or three of these categories might be a goer. Grutness...wha? 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Quite a few categories have been created already: Cat:Planet stubs, Cat:Dwarf planet stubs, Cat:Giant planet stubs, Cat:Terrestrial planet stubs, Cat:Jupiter stubs, {{cl|Martian stubs}}, Cat:Mercury stubs, Cat:Neptune stubs, Cat:Saturn stubs, Cat:Uranus stubs and Cat:Venus stubs Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My fault, the Martian one is an old creation. Cat:Craters on Mars stubs is a new creation. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the MarsCrater-stub seems to be blank except for the cat link... Grutness...wha? 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The one for Venus had been completely blanked. Perhaps the creator was trying to delete them again? Anyway, I've removed them from WP:WSS/ST for the time being. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I'd do this would be to create a few of the most needed stub categories, i.e. one for articles relating to the Moon, Jovian moons and Satunian moons. These categories would be subcategories of {{crater-stub}} and {{planet-stub}}. {{planet-stub}} could also be used for stubs on moons of planets or extrasolar planets. I'm not supportive of a Mars-crater stub as there's no use for one and it makes {{mars-stub}}, an approved stub type, look rather empty. I've had a look at Category:Craters on the Moon, picking a few articles at random, and found that most of them are untagged stubs.

• {{terrestrialplanet-stub}} is completely unnecessary, there are only four terrestrial planets.
• {{dwarfplanet-stub}} is completely unnecessary, there are only three official dwarf planets - Pluto, Eris and Ceres.
• {{giantplanet-stub}} is unnecessary and ambigious, what constitutes a giant planet?
• {{mercury-stub}} is unnecessary, see Category:Mercury.
• {{venus-stub}} is not required yet, there isn't enough stuff in Category:Venus to justify it. This also applies to {{uranus-stub}} and {{neptune-stub}}.

I hope someone's got AWB around here because there are a lot of lunar craters to be tagged. I'll just rollback the {{MarsCrater-stub}}s when given the all-clear - reverting is what I do best. MER-C 11:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, the relevant WikiProject expressed their concern about these stub types, see the talk page and here. MER-C 11:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the Moon, I don't think we have a specialized template. Do you have any count for how many articles could use a {{Moon-stub}} ? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's on the order of hundreds but no definite figure as most of these stubs are untagged. Check out Category:Craters on the Moon to get an idea of the size of the pool. MER-C 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A suggested compromise situation: I could quite easily see the following hierarchy being viable:

• {{planet-stub}} feeding into Cat:planet stubs
  • {{mercury-stub}} and {{venus-stub}} both feeding into Cat:Terrestrial planet stubs
    • {{mars-stub}} and Cat:Mars stubs (for some reason currently named Cat:Martian stubs) as a subcategory of this (deletion of the mars-crater stub)
  • {{jupiter-stub}} though to {{Neptune-stub}} all feeding into Cat:Gas giant stubs
  • {{extrasolar-planet-stub}} feeding into Cat:Extrasolar planet stubs
• a separate {{moon-stub}}/Cat:Moon stubs

The minor planets could simply get planet-stub, and this allows for the possible eventual expansion into subcategories for each individual planet if needed. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup to that - I notice that there is an Exoplanet-stub on the discoveries list, which would fit into this scheme if kept. Grutness...wha? 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

{{MarsCrater-stub}} is now at SFD. MER-C 09:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I created {{moon-stub}} and Category:Moon stubs since no objections were raised in the 9 days since I proposed it. Feel free to tweak the categorisation. Populating... MER-C 08:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Martian stubs is up for renaming at WP:SFD. I've still got 1300 craters to look at on the moon. MER-C 10:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Uhhhhhh...I don't think so. Aelfthrytha 11:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Definite delete--Thomas.macmillan 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Shalom to this one. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Not proposed that I recall, five stubs, renamed by CFD (tsk-tsk), hence the mysterious-looking history. Alai 04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

• Cat:Irish building and structure stubs
• Cat:Spanish building and structure stubs

The first of these I was about to propose myself, on foot of Ireland-stub being oversized: seems likely to be viable. The other I have no idea about, rather small ATM. Alai 03:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Used for the Sci Fi Channel (United States). 52 articles. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not the world's best name, since it sounds like it could be for American science fiction. If we decide to keep it, I'd suggest it gets moved to something a bit clearer (SciFiChannelUS-stub being the obvious). other than that, it seems plausible, though we've had arguments about individual channel stubs in the past. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

I can not seem to find it anywhere in the proposals. All articles that I found tagged with this are not stubs but rather long articles. They all seem to be the work of one person.--- Skapur 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It was proposed, but you probably couldn't find it because the title of the proposal makes no mention of the stub type by name. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive26#Splitting Cat:United States law stubs. It shouldn't be being used on long articles, though. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Just discovered it today while looking through the Mammal stub sub-categories. It was created in September, and it's still empty. Eli Falk 07:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

well, we could try to populate it, I suppose, but the even-toed ungulate stub category is hardly overpopulated. I count about 40 sheep stubs in there, which is passable, but is it needed? Come to think of it, I don't recall the even-toed ungulate stub category being proposed, either, but that's probably just my memory and the huge flow-through of these pages... Grutness...wha? 09:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is populated alright, the template just doesn't point to Cat:Sheep stubs. "What links here" gives almost 60 articles. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Grutness...wha? 11:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the discussion wherein sheep-stub was deemed "nocreate". Pegship 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

True... but I note it said it had already been created. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know. I'm just digging up the background so wiser heads can debate it. Baaaaah. Pegship 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, fifty stubs isn't too bad... though about half a dozen of them shouldn't be in there, since they relate to wool farming and marketing, not sheep themselves, and so should be marked with something like agri-stub - especially since not all wool is automatically sheep wool. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that hair splitting? Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

More TV nonsense. How do we keep finding these things? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

I couldn't find this on the main page. It has 116 entries. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is also mentioned above ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• As above, it mentions that the tag was used on long articles. I weeded out most of the long articles, and it's down to 62 articles now. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was more of these are at SFD now

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was sfd -president- and -polit-, create -politician-

No category. Unlikely it'll ever get close to 60 stubs. Currently has two. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Used on one article which was not a stub ... Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has also created {{Uruguayan-polit-stub}} (which should have been a -politician). Last time I counted (half a year ago) we had around 20 stub articles about Uruguayan politicians, primarily presidents. Both should be deleted, but perhaps we should create an upmerged -politician template. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Same person - that was one of the ones I took to SFD - it's small but not unsaveable, perhaps, but it needs some form of renaming at least (which is why I bypassed this page). Grutness...wha? 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a few Uruguayan presidents (and almost no politicians) have good articles, that's why I created the stub templates, I think they both should be kept. --Wesborland 14:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article List of Presidents of Uruguay suggests we only have 36 articles about presidents of Uruguay. I don't see how it's possible that 60 of those 36 are stub articles. Even if all the redlinks were filled, over 90% of the articles on Uruguayan presidents would have to be stubs for the category to reach the necessary threshold of viability (there have only been 64 Uruguayan presidents in total). No other country in the world has a separate stub category for its presidents, either - I don't see why Uruguay should be unique in this regard. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, how about the Uruguayan politician stub template? --Wesborland 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody will object to a generic template for Uruguayan politicians (including presidents and other officeholders). Precedent is established for such templates, and it will have a much better chance of living up to the size criteria. The only problem with that one is that it should follow the standard naming format, i.e. the name should be: {{Uruguay-politician-stub}}. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you check WP:SFD, you'll see I've taken it there with a proposal of keeping it but renaming it to comply with the naming guidelines. Even if that doesn't yet reach 60 stubs, it could be kept and feed into a pareent category until such time that it does have enough. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently, we have 30 senators and 99 congressmen without an article. I'll get started on those articles asap and there will be enough stubs for the template. --Wesborland 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

A likely keeper - 126 stubs and well formed. Just never proposed. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Links to "Category:Cebu-related stubs"" (gah), which doesn't exist. The only item marked was a geo-stub, now marked with philippines-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

SFD sounds appropriate. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.