Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read
How to propose a new stub type.
Shortcut:
WP:WSS/P
WikiProject Stub sorting
 v • d • e 
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- List of stub redirects talk
- Naming guidelines  
- To do talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Criteria (A) talk
Proposals (A) talk
Discoveries (A) talk
Deletion (Log) talk
Category

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Proposing new stub types - procedure

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

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which is already being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages.

[edit] "Speedy creation"

A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:

  • S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
  • S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope.

List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.

[edit] Proposals, June 2008

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

[edit] NEW PROPOSALS

[edit] Cat:contract law stubs

70 of these by category. Parent is traditionally (and currently) oversized. Alai (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:data structure stubs

The comp-sci stubs are rather large now; I believe there are around 81 on data structures that could be carved out. I shall keep plugging away to find other possible subtypes. Alai (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:psychology stubs: subtypes by branch, or thereabouts?

  • Cat:social psychology stubs 437
  • Cat:clinical psychology stubs 196
  • Cat:perception stubs 72
  • Cat:educational psychology stubs 67

There's also the previously-mooted prospect of a Cat:psychiatry stubs, which would be populable on the face of it, at 176 according to the cat-hierarchy: unsurprisingly, though, about 114 of those are also candidates for clin-psych.

I'd propose to start with Cat:social psychology, since that has has the largest number of direction categorisations, so seems the safest bet, and work from there. Alai (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's bound to be some overlap, butt I'd say go for it. I'd be tempted to make the perception category a Cat:Perception and psychophysics stubs, since the two are so closely allied, but then I'll admit to bias on that point. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's not an obvious parent in the permcat hierarchy for those two, so perhaps you should be rebiasing those, in the first instance... I skipped Cat:cognition as ludicrously broad in categorical terms, and Cat:cognitive psychology turns up not in "branches", but in "theories". Is that a better axis? Search me. If they happened to get a moment in between sorting Cat:Antarctica stubs (hint, hint), perhaps someone familiar with this area could examine the permcats for sanity of mapping to various stub options... (hint, hint, hint!) Alai (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:architectural element stubs

Another long-standing oversized parent, I think this would possibly solve that at a stroke. There's anywhere up to 211 of these, if you believe the category hierarchy implicitly, but at any rate there's at least 65 that are directly in the permcat. Alai (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:New Zealand government stubs

Did we approve this already? Rings a bell from someplace, seems to be 62 of them. As noted, parent oversized. Alai (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Cat:New Zealand politics stubs, which got made about a month back. Support, anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, though I thought I'd thought of thinking of that. As it were. It also occurred to me that it was the same sixty-odd articles getting triple-stubbed, but they do seem to actually be distinct. Alai (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Gah - have you been listening to the Chills' song "I think I thought I'd something else to think about" again? :) Grutness...wha? 00:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:passport stubs

Not one that would have occurred to me, but there seem to be exactly 60 of these in the oversized Cat:government stubs. Alai (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:anime and manga stubs subtypes

  • Cat:manga series stubs 392
    • Cat:1990s manga stubs 65
    • Cat:2000s manga stubs 109

Another long-term oversized type, that I submit we have to bite the bullet on sooner or later. Alai (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:head and neck stubs

To help deal with the Cat:anatomy stubs -- again, all other/betters ideas also sought. No apparent problem with size here: I see over 100, plus would supercat Cat:eye stubs and Cat:dentistry stubs, I assume. Alai (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:medical term stubs

I count 53 of these, and the med-stubs are, is as traditional, huge. Anyone find another 7 for me, advocate winking at the shortfall, or think of a better idea? Alai (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:pharmacology stubs subtypes

This is a long-term-oversized stub type with huge and twisty category tree that I'm going to propose tackling in a fairly gradualist manner, so as to try to minimise overlap, and incoherent transitivity of the category tree.

  • Cat:Cannabinoid stubs 60
  • Cat:Anxiolytic stubs 68

I may have more to follow during the run of this proposal, but if anyone else has any ideas, I'd love to hear 'em. Alai (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:2000s pop album stubs subtypes

Yes, oversized! What, you guessed? Some possibility to re-sort s'more to Cat:2000s pop rock album stubs and to Cat:2000s indie pop album stubs, but those won't hold us for long, if at all. In due course I suspect we'll be needing:

  • Cat:2000s dance-pop album stubs 42
  • Cat:2000s teen pop album stubs 34

If they can't be made viable in the short-term, I may have to settle for upmerged templates. Alai (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:English people stubs subtypes

This oversized and essentially useless category continues to plague us (and continues to be useless). Here's some possibilities, and their estimated sizes from the category tree:

  • Cat:English business biography stubs 95
  • Cat:English scientist stubs 195
  • Cat:English military personnel stubs 114

I'd take the numbers with a pinch of salt in this case, as many of them aren't in the "English" portion of the permcat tree, just stub-tagged that way, but they seem to at least indicate fairly strong prospects of viability. Alai (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:transmembrane receptor stubs

Don't even ask me exactly what these are... I just know we have a lot of 'em! The Cat:membrane protein stubs are very oversized; this would seem to split 'em roughly in two. I'll try to find a WPJ that would be able to tell if this makes any sense. Alai (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Malabar geography stubs

The Kerala-geos are oversized, no single district appears to be over threshold. Suggest upmerged templates, feeding into historic regions, starting with this one. Alai (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:European tennis biography stubs

Upmerge following, S2 speedy

  • {{CzechRepublic-tennis-bio-stub}} (30)
  • {{Germany-tennis-bio-stub}} (50)
  • {{Spain-tennis-bio-stub}} (44)

SeveroTC 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy these, and the two below. Support any country-level levels anyone is minded to create for both. Alai (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:European boxing biography stubs

  • {{Italy-boxing-bio-stub}}/Cat:Italian boxing biography stubs (61) — un-upmerge S1 Speedy
  • {{France-boxing-bio-stub}} (35) — upmerge S2 Speedy

SeveroTC 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Fiddler stubs

Looking through the fiddler articles I see quite a few stubs (see for example category:Fiddlers by nationality; the List of fiddlers talk page and historical changes suggest that there are many more on the way) . The most appropriate stub category currently available is Violinist stubs, but there are already nearly 300 "violinist" stubs, of which only a handful are fiddlers'. The editor population attracted to the "violinist" label, and the category's size, make me think that fiddler stub expansion won't go anywhere without its own category. — eitch 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Slightly cart before the horse, if the stub articles don't even exist yet, much less be getting much attention for expansion: see the "numerosity" clause in the stub type creation criteria. However, if the music editors are satisfied this is a "clean" distinction in scope, I would suggest that an upmerged template be appropriate, until there's enough for a separate category. (i.e., 60 of 'em.) Alai (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old business

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

[edit] Cat:Hardware stubs

I was working on harness and noticed it had an inappropriate stub category. I looked at the list of stub types and found nothing that would group hardware, general misc equipment or gear together under one category of stub. This category could be further subdivided when appropriate, but other technology based stub types seem inappropriate for this type of article. I'm not hardover on the title but I think this one is a good top level name. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That the article is now a disambig, and the category has been deleted twice does not fill me with high hope, I must admit. Can you scope this in such a way that it a) corresponds to a permcat, b) would be populable, given the "numerosity" objective, and c) isn't too vague or broad for any practical utility? Alai (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Normally, we'd use the fairly vague {{Tool-stub}} for this sort of thing, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look like those articles would actually be in the Cat:tools permcat hierarchy, but rather Cat:equipment. An {{equipment-stub}} would be even more tremendously vague, however. Alai (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not wrapped around the axle about the name, as long as it's reasonable of course. Equipment, hardware, or something of that nature which is missing from the the Stubs list. I just can't find anything that I can use that isn't a big stretch. I don't care if it's been deleted, maybe those folks didn't look hard enough to find articles, I don't know. Why is there a technology list and then an Other technology list? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The permanent category was deleted. There's no "numerosity" requirement for permcats, so if was deleted for lack of use, it must have been entirely unused. But more to the point, I'm still not seeing either the need, or the utility. Other technology? I don't get the context. Alai (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I retract my request. Too many naysayers. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't say "nay", I said, "please explain further how we could sensibly do this". You didn't. Alai (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Israeli musical group stubs

I was just adding to the article Monotonix, an Israeli band, when I decided to see if there was a specific stub for Israeli bands. Noting that the existing stubs are as far flung as Danish and Korean bands, I nearly created it before noticing this area. There are 61 articles in the category for Israeli musical groups with four subcategories and surely many of those can only be stub class. Red157(talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed stub name to what the cat would be, not the actual stub. Red157(talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly support an upmerged template ({{Israel-band-stub}}) - if there prove to be 60 or more stubs using it, a category could easily be speedied later. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy an upmerged template, per Grutification, and the existing by-country pattern. A stubsense/catscan/(whatever tool actually works this week) maven may be able to give you a fairly accurate count in advance, though, if you're desperate for the category too. (To quibble, the concept of a "stub class article" is one that this project's never quite sussed out what it's supposed to mean, and the WP1.0ers have (IMO) never been in the least clear on, vis a vis "stub" per say, though it would be fair to say that for 99% of people, and 99% of articles, the two are treated as being interchangeable.) Alai (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope I've done correct in both creating the template ({{Israel-band-stub}}) and the category (Cat:Israeli musical group stubs). All that is left is for me to start adding the stubs to it. I can't say everything went to plan; due to carelessness on my part I created Cat:Israel musical group stubs by accident. Red157(talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those categories would have been in my plan, but I've speedied the latter, at least. As things are far from clear on the "numerosity" issue, I would recommend revisiting upmerger fairly soon, if this doesn't show at least some growth, beyond the one article we've heard of, and that now populates the type. (One might also mention the small matter of the discussion period, though admittedly I did suggest a partial speedying.) Alai (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it was clear from the comments above that the template should have been upmerged (i.e., not have its own category). Still, we'll see if it grows to threshold - if not, it may need to be upmerged later. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was entirely clear, as there seemed to be some sort of stream of consciousness argument that there must be 60 of them, someplace. But it was a little too speculative-sounding for my money. Still waiting hopefully for that somewhat more concrete estimate... Alai (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for any rashness on my part. I'm still a relative youth in this game and have always learned by doing on wikipedia, but I completely understanding at least removing the category if I don't find enough stubs to be placed in there. Though I was right enough in thinking most Israeli band articles are what I'd judge as stubs, just don't know if there's enough of them. Red157(talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, no-one died. There's 52 in there now (nice sorting job), which to use the technical term is "pretty darn close to 60", so I'd suggest we put any immediate notions of upmerger on hold, in the hopes that another eight turn up on some reasonable timeframe. Alai (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough to me. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Smoking stubs

Sub-stubs could subsequently be created for tobacco, pipe smoking, etc. My use case here is Dokha, which I've just created. -- -- Earle Martin [t/c] 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there enough of them to warrant even one stub type? There used to be a stub type for this a couple of years ago, but IIRC it was deleted as being virtually totally unused. I realise WP has grown a lot since then, but I still wonder just how useful this would be. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It was {{tobacco-stub}} which was itself a expansion of {{cigar-stub}}. It was deleted back in April 2006, before we started having upmerged stubs as a possibility. If {{smoking-stub}} were to also include cannabis, I think it would have enough to support an upmerged stub template to Cat:Psychoactive drug stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... that might work. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's in line with the permcats, certainly, though of course MJ isn't always smoked, so it's not a completely clean split by substance. But certainly an upmerged template seems like a good plan. Alai (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps something like {{recreational-drug-stub}} might be a cleaner and wider-scoped solution? That would certainly have close to the numbers for its own category, and could even conceivably take Cat:Tea and coffee stubs as a subtype. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
...then again, it looks like there is no Cat:Recreational drugs, so perhaps that's a non-starter, sadly. Grutness...wha? 12:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the gist of the discussion when we were splitting up the pharm-stubs, there was strong opposition from the nearest-neighbour WPJ about anything that even had a whiff of a "recreational drugs" vs. "pharmaceutical medicines" demarcation. Alai (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the perm cats, it looks like one possibility might be Cat:Medicinal herb and fungi stubs (permcat Cat:Medicinal herbs and fungi) as a child of both Cat:Pharmacology stubs and Cat:Plant stubs, though the permcat needs work too. By the way, it also looks like Cat:Hallucinogen stubs is in need of a rename to Cat:Psychedelic, dissociative and deliriant stubs to match the change in name several years ago of its parent from Cat:Hallucinogens to Cat:Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd one: looks as if the one was moved shortly after the other was created, making them a mismatch for almost their entire joint existence. I support hauling this off to SFR, unless someone can think of some technical excuse, or wishes to boldly IAR, for renaming. Alai (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Joint existence"? Hm. In any case, yes, a rename looks like it might be necessary. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As in "the period of time when both were extant". Alai (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals, May 2008

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

[edit] Cat:Cycling biography stubs split

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

Following can at last be upmerged:

SeveroTC 23:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can speedy upmerged templates for any country you deem worth the effort of the act of creating same, regardless of counts. We might want to consider a Cat:European cycling biography stubs, sooner or later. (It'll be viable, the only question is, how much so will what's left be?) Alai (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of continental level categories. The European category would still be large but it would take out a nice number of non-Europeans:
  • Oceania = a category of c.66 including the upmerged Australia- template (47)
  • South America = a category of c.80 including the upmerged Colombia- template (30)
  • North America = a category of c.35 including a US- subcat
  • Asia = c.40
  • Africa = c.20
SeveroTC 00:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Almost perfect: we'd have four new viable subcats, and a very reasonably-sized remainder parent. Only the NA one is at all marginal, but let's go for it anyway. Support all. Alai (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Cat:Sorbeoconcha stubs subtypes, by family

These are currently split between the above-mentioned parent, and the long-deprecated Cat:Mesogastropoda stubs type, which has been awaiting followup action for months and months. This would reduce the size of the problem, and hopefully stimulate a final resolution thereof, if someone would care to run the rule over each of the other families, and determine if they're still viable entities in the latest taxonomy. (BTW, this is on-going fallout from a run of Polbot, which was using data from several taxonomies ago.) Alai (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as the re-sorting seems to be going at...a...snail's...pace...Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak groan. Alai (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Captain Slog, supplemental... Slight oops on the Beddomeia: that's not a family, it's a jolly large genus. Or at least, formerly large, until species extinction kicked it. I've left it as an upmerged template, since genera subtypes seem a little premature. However, I think the following are all viable or thereabouts at the family level:
  • Cat:Pleuroceridae stubs 89
  • Cat:Thiaridae stubs 74
  • Cat:Diplommatinidae stubs 57

That's just counting from the residual mesos. Alai (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy

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

{{Azerbaijan-footy-bio-stub}} has 62 articles propose Cat:Azerbaijani football biography stubs. Waacstats (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Your header title stole my punchline! And isn't otherwise useful, btw. :) Support speedying. Alai (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that was in a bbit of a rush. Waacstats (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Cat:Afghanistan geography stubs, by state, and related bot request

Let me draw your attention to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot, which in the first instance is going (it is proposed) to create a whole load of Afghan-geos, and thereafter much else besides. So I suggest that we, in the short term and the specific instance, create upmerged templates on a per-state basis, and in the longer term and in general, keep in front of the bot's progress as it tackles each country . (The bot-op seems to be willing to help keep us in the loop on this, but might not be too thrilled if he'd end up waiting for a week for each run.) Alai (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy approval per bot approval discussion and to foster cooperation between stubbers & botters. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - almost speedy - we should check there aren't any naming problems with Afghan provinces first, to get the template names as good as possible before the off. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Cat:Provinces of Afghanistan shows that these names are likely to be all OK (with Sar-e pol the only problem name - SarePol-geo-stub?). BUT - Afghanistan has 34 provinces and there are 38 categories! Clearly redirects are going to be needed for Bamyan/Bamian/Bamiyan, Nuristan/Nurestan, and Orūzgān/Uruzgan. Some CfD work is also needed. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Template list: I made a list of templates. I checked them against the actual articles to use the current article name. For Oruzgan, I removed the special characters and used SarePol for Sar-e Pol.
  1. {{Badakhshan-geo-stub}}
  2. {{Badghis-geo-stub}}
  3. {{Baghlan-geo-stub}}
  4. {{Balkh-geo-stub}}
  5. {{Bamyan-geo-stub}}
  6. {{Daykundi-geo-stub}}
  7. {{Farah-geo-stub}}
  8. {{Faryab-geo-stub}}
  9. {{Ghazni-geo-stub}}
  10. {{Ghor-geo-stub}}
  11. {{Helmand-geo-stub}}
  12. {{Herat-geo-stub}}
  13. {{Jowzjan-geo-stub}}
  14. {{Kabul-geo-stub}}
  15. {{Kandahar-geo-stub}}
  16. {{Kapisa-geo-stub}}
  17. {{Khost-geo-stub}}
  18. {{Kunar-geo-stub}}
  19. {{Kunduz-geo-stub}}
  20. {{Laghman-geo-stub}}
  21. {{Lowgar-geo-stub}}
  22. {{Nangarhar-geo-stub}}
  23. {{Nimruz-geo-stub}}
  24. {{Nuristan-geo-stub}}
  25. {{Oruzgan-geo-stub}}
  26. {{Paktia-geo-stub}}
  27. {{Paktika-geo-stub}}
  28. {{Panjshir-geo-stub}}
  29. {{Parwan-geo-stub}}
  30. {{Samangan-geo-stub}}
  31. {{SarePol-geo-stub}}
  32. {{Takhar-geo-stub}}
  33. {{Wardak-geo-stub}}
  34. {{Zabul-geo-stub}}
Let me know if this is okay to create these. I can create them with the up-merged category. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I might have gone with {{Orūzgān-geo-stub}} with redirects from the other two, just to more closely follow the articlespace, but close enough for government work, given that the article lists all three. I certainly support speedy creation of all the above. Alai (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd support speedy creation of these, too - we can always worry about possible redirects from alternative names later. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have created the templates. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Mid and Outer Solar System asteroid stubs

OK, grab-bag warning. In an increasingly desparate attempt to chip some icecubes off the asteroid-stub-berg, it looks like this will fly (but leaves a massive MB remainder I'm at a loss with). Upmerged templates for significant sub-types such as the Jupiter Trojans, who are probably the majority of these, are probably a good idea. Alai (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European school stubs by nation

Cat:European school stubs is a oversized (325 articles at present), suggest splitting to national level (eg. {{Norway-school-stub}} which has over 30 candidates), and upmerging where appropriate. (possibly speediable under S2) -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say 325 articles is oversized: have you seen the size of the backlog of stub types that are over 800?  :) I certainly support speedying any national upmerged templates you fancy whatsoever. Bear in mind that the threshold for separate "un-upmerged" categories is 60, however. Alai (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I've come across many stub cats over 200 articles, to be honest; mind you, my main interest is in the categorisation of school cats. I was aware at the 60 articles to make it's own category, and would obviously respect that (the figure for Norway was from stub sense for those marked as both {{Norway-stub}} and {{Euro-school-stub}}; I thought there were more than that though, from my stub-sorting in Cat:School stubs and children. Which reminds me, Is there a precedent for dealing with stubs in Oceania and the Caribbean? It seems that whilst the major countries are represented, it might be worth doing "something" to move them into Continental categories maybe? -- Ratarsed (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Stroll on over to WP:WSS/T and be appalled, then. :) The schools have been oversized (as in over 800) in the past, but are clearly being wrassled under control these days. Just checking about the 60, given your mention in passing of 30, pardon my over-zealousness. We've certainly had categories for both Oceania and the Caribbean in the past (and have them at present), so no reason that couldn't be looked at here, too. Per-country upmerged templates preferred, however. Alai (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian orgs, possible splits

Yes, oversized. Seems to be huge numbers of radio stations. Here's some possible splits:

  • Cat:Christian radio station stubs 484
  • Cat:United States Christian radio station stubs 436
  • Cat:Christian contemporary radio station stubs 98
  • Cat:United States Gospel radio station stubs 61
  • Cat:Evangelical parachurch organisation stubs 69

Off the top of my head, I think I'd do with just the first two for now, as they seem the most clear-cut in scope. Alai (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support as parent is oversized. Not too happy about splitting radio stations by genre but I suppose as this is a split of Christian orgs we can argue against further by genre splits based on that fact. Waacstats (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
They may also be tagged as radio station stubs (geographically sorted or otherwise) -- I haven't checked in detail. So this split of the org tag would not, in the first instance, affect any existing radio station tags, and I would of course urge that for future use they be double-stubbed with both such. Alai (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Australian radio biography stubs

Only thing that seems to be even nearly viable out of the oversized Aus bios, at 57. Alai (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support if there are 57ish, template currently only has 37 articles though. Waacstats (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't realized there was an upmerged template. I shall report back after I've populated it somewhat further. Alai (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Thai museum stubs

Or "Thailand museum stubs", or "Museum in Thailand stubs", however we're mangling these this week. Viable at 80, parent is oversized. Alai (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Building and structure category would use Thai, I Support Cat:Thai museum stubs and a rename of the Australian category is probably in order. Waacstats (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Russian business biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create

Not quite guaranteed to be viable at a category-base count of 59, but I'm sure there's another oligarch lurking around someplace. Parent is current oversized, though I'm sure resorting, especially to the writers, politicians and scientists, would take care of that. Alai (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support There are bound to be a couple hiding in business-bio cats. Waacstats (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Split of "scientific" journals

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

Firstly, notice that this has been rescoped to include all academic journals, which would be sensible enough, except that the old template and category are still in use for such, rather confusingly. In the medium-term this will require a rename, but since we probably want to keep the science type in use as such, I suggest as a first step that we create an Cat:academic journal stubs, and migrate as much of the content as possible to fresh subtypes or upmerged templates, so as to reduce the amount of double-handling we'll end up doing in the eventual rename. On which note, here's some by-permcat numbers:

No guarantees we don't have some overlap. Alai (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Having traipsed backwards and forwards between different sections of a university library while doing my Psych MSc, I can virtually guarantee it :) Grutness...wha? 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
sounds like a good plan and hopefully not too much overlap. Waacstats (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

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

The result of the debate was create by country of origin

Cat:Diplomat stubs is around 600 and heavily undersorted, as most diplomats are only sorted into the politician stub. Templates for every continent, categories when they reach 60+--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Support and comment - There are definitely well over 60 from Europe. Catscan suggests that 201 of them could simply use {{US-diplomat-stub}}, if such were also created, so I'd suggest creating that as well. An upmerged UK template (39 stubs) may also be useful. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer we started with the "obvious" countries, and upmerged those to continents in the first instance, as and when. If it would seriously inconvenience to go without the continental templates, though, I can just about wear those, too. Alai (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This will sound daft but can I confirm that a British ambassador to the United States would be given a UK template only, i.e not a US template. Waacstats (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Diplomats should be sorted by country of origin, not country od service, like any soccer player or politician.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I expected but I have seen the odd diplomat say for a US diplomat in Brazil given a US-bio-stub, diplomat-stub and brazil-bio-stub. Just wanted to check everyone here was working the same way. Waacstats (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like a good working principle to me, but Wiki Rule Number One is kinda that there's no accounting for "everyone". Alai (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Split of Cat:European sports venue stubs

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

The result of the debate was create

Following can be upmerged:

SeveroTC 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. and I think any other country people want to do should be ok. Waacstats (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. These won't take care of the excess in the short term, though. However, I believe a Cat:European ice hockey venue stubs would be viable, and would do so. Alai (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, articles matching Cat:Ice hockey venue stubs and a) Cat:European sports venue stubs = 60; b) recursive Cat:European sports venue stubs = 114. SeveroTC 15:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Only problem there is that a number of the ice hockey venue articles are marked with a nation-sports-venue-stub which will still point to the euro cat. Waacstats (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagined that might be the case, but the solution would be double-stubbing. In fact, I think a large number are already double-stubbed -- I'm speaking from vague memory here, don't hold me to it. (I think I crunched the numbers off last month's db dump, and I'm currently building the db for this month.) Though it may be that it doesn't actually resolve the "excess" issue, for that reason. Alai (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] {{Sufism-stub}} or such like

(moved from talk page) I wanted to create a new stub template for sufism stubs. As I was unaware of the red tape involved I just went ahead and made a category Sufism stubs. It easily has hundereds of articles within its scope and is a much needed template for the development of Sufism related topics and the Sufism portal. The only consensus that was built on this template was on the Sufism talk page. Anyway, what is the appropriate way forward. Thanks--Shahab (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, it looks like this would be viable; there are currently 81 articles in the category and Cat:Islam stubs is over 600. Should we keep it, folks? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, at least as a template, though if there are as many as Peg suggests a category would be a good idea too. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category: North East England building and structure stubs (speedy)

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 think this qualifies for S1 speedy creation. I believe there are more than 60 articles tagged with Template:Durham-struct-stub, Template:Northumberland-struct-stub, or Template:TyneandWear-struct-stub, and those should all go into a North East England building and structure stubs category. I suppose Template:NorthYorkshire-struct-stub could also be added, though that's already in Category:Yorkshire building and structure stubs. Klausness (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, North Yorks would have to be split up into constituent UAs, as I mentioned earlier. Ceremonial counties don't "nest" into the regions perfectly, so their use isn't really ideal, but it does save some extra templates in most instances. Come to that, the latter should be rescoped as Cat:Yorkshire and the Humber building and structure stubs, with two additional upmerged Lincolnshire UA templates, if we want all the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together properly. Alai (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the regional category, and slap UK government around the head for not subdividing its regions properly. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Do bear in mind that ceremonial counties are, well, ceremonial. The UAs, metropolitan counties and shire counties (if I have my Anatidae entirely row-wise) are the more meaningful divisions, in practical terms. Alai (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Ballad stubs

Category:Ballads has been subdivided at an exponential rate. On top of that music genre song categories have been subdivided for ballad profiling as well. So many genres have profiled ballads, that it lead to the creation of the subcategory Category:Ballads by genre. So many ballads have been profiled, that we need to make the template {{stub-ballad}}

Sample:

This ballad-related article is a stub.

--Roadstaa (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I think it would be {{ballad-stub}} or {{ballad-song-stub}}...if it flies. It looks like we have previously subdivided by music genre and then by "song" (see Cat:Song stubs). Since ballads can belong to many genres, I think we should stick with the current song-stub sub-cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It would definitely be {{Ballad-stub}} or {{Ballad-song-stub}} - not {{Stub-ballad}} - but to be honest I'm not keen. The term Ballad has various slippery and vague definitions, even in music alone (ballads are primarily poems that tell stories). In music there are at least three different definitions of the term (one for rock, one for folk, and one for jazz). As such, any stub division into ballads and non-ballads is going to be problematical. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand my template nomenclature mistake. Also, ballads make up almost 50% of popular music. Thats one criterion that warrants a ballad stub category and template. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That is exactly the problem. We already have a bunch of popular music stub types split up per genre and decade, but not musical form (you only find that in the classical music stubs). We don't split by the theme of the piece either, i.e. (in the case of ballads), songs that tell a story. We need to stick close to the current structure or we might as well give up on any structure. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ironically, the fact that such a high proportion of songs are ballads might actually mitigate against there being a stub type. Such a broad split might not be much use in the long run, since it would instantly result in the need for extra splits. 50% of song stubs? That'd make a big category... Grutness...wha? 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split of Togo-geo-stub

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

The result of the debate was create

A strange situation has come up with trying to split {{Togo-geo-stub}}. It seems that editors have gone on a mass-stub creating binge, but only for a few prectures in the Kara Region. Propose creating stub templates for all regions, and templates and categories for Cat:Assoli Prefecture, Cat:Bassar Prefecture, and Cat:Doufelgou Prefecture.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the by prefecture split, however the regions are the first level division so could we upmerge the relevent templates to regional categories. Waacstats (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The 3 prefectures I linked to above all have above 60 stubs (one of them has nearly 200), so it seems less helpful to just dump 300+ stubs into one bigger category when we can split them more effectively.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
sorry. I meant upmerging the other prefecture templates to regional categories. Waacstats (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Missing categories for some existing stub templates

Some templates in Category:United Kingdom building and structure stubs don't seem to have their own categories. Before I go ahead and create those, I thought I should check here (even though I wouldn't really be creating new stubs, just the missing categories). The templates are Template:Durham-struct-stub, Template:NorthernIreland-struct-stub, Template:Northumberland-struct-stub, and Template:TyneandWear-struct-stub. Klausness (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! That's because until a stub template is used on 60 or more articles, it doesn't get its own category, per stub creation guidelines. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK.... Well, never mind then.... Klausness (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I do have a followup, though. What would be the process for creating, say, a North East England building and structure stubs category (which would presumably include Durham, Northumberland, and Tyne and Wear)? Would this need to be proposed once there are enough articles to go into it? For example, Category:East Midlands building and structure stubs doesn't have its own template, so presumably all its members are there via one of the more specific templates in the category. Klausness (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be this very process. :) It looks to me like it's there or thereabouts, and it's indeed exactly on the pattern of existing split, so I'd certainly support it as soon as there's 60. (Some stray bits of North Yorks should also be included, which will probably require some additional templates at the UA level.) Alai (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Klausness, you might also like to check out our Speedy creation criteria at the top of the page - S1 describes exactly the sort of situation you were initially talking about. As far as the regional splits are concerned, as long as they are along official regional lines (as shown here), I see no problem with it, other than the usual one that some counties straddle region lines. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I tagged a few more releveant stub articles, and I think there should definitely be more than 60 now. Klausness (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{ChannelIslands-bio-stub}}/Cat:Channel Islands people stubs

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

The result of the debate was create umbrella tpl & cat + upmerged island tpls

Though nowhere near urgent, I note that close to 80 of the 150-odd Cat:Channel Islands stubs are bio-stubs. Might be worth having at least a separate template, and ideally a separate category as well. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Question? Are we going to split the Channel Islands like we do a country (eg ChannelIslands-bio-stub, ChannelIslands-geo-stub) or split it first into its component parts (eg jersey-stub, guernsey-stub). Note that there are seperate wikiprojects for both Jersey and Guernsey (inactive since Jan and only 1 person is a member (the same person, creater of both) but they do exist). Waacstats (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What's happened with the geo-stubs is that there is a ChannelIslands-geo-stub with two redirects to it (Jersey-geo-stub and Guernsey-geo-stub). It might be worth doing the same with the bio-stub (if it is made). As far as the generic ChannelIslands-stub, I thin quite a few of the articles deal with both of the bailiwicks, so there's not the clear split there is with either the people or the places, though similar redirects might be worthwhile there too. Given that the same person seems to be the entirety of both wikiprojects I doubt there'll be any clamouring for separate stub types until they get big enough to be noticed by WP:WSS, and if it's anything like the geo-stub they will be heavily weighted towards Jersey anyway. Grutness...wha? 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Either axis of split sounds feasible to me, so I'd be happy to defer to the one-man band(s). Possibly a slight preference for the "by type" split, since we've already gone that way with the geos. Alai (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with either axis split, the idea of having by type with upmerged jersey-, guernsey- templates is probably the best. Waacstats (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd have a slight preference for distinct, upmerged templates (if we go with that axis of split), since it'd avoid the need to have two distinct images in each (currently horribly oversized when taken together, and would be a little indistinct if resized to 20x15 or so). Alai (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. From that, two separate templates both feeding into the one category may make more sense that one with two redirects, since it's unlikely there are many bios relating to both (though there are some Norman counts... they may do). Grutness...wha? 23:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We may wish to keep the "canonical" template as well, for the sake of back-compatibility. Though I have a strong urge to shrink the image sizes, and will likely do so once most are replaced by the more specific ones. (Unless someone wants to get fancy and impale or divide them per bend into a single image...) Alai (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Korean-culture-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged Korea-art-stub for now

Korean culture related articles are just categorized under {{Korea-stub}}, so I think this template would be good for sorting out among 580 stubs.--Appletrees (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • If a more specific type is viable ({{Korea-art-stub}}, {{Korea-musician-stub}}, {{Korea-actor-stub}}), I would rather support that. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's also {{Korea-cuisine-stub}}. I agree with Peg - it's likely that many if nto most of these could be sorted into subtypes already. We have very few "culture-stub" types, largely because it's a fairly broad and amorphous area and usually easier to use more specific templates. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • {{Korea-art-stub}} is also necessary but Korean tradition such as holidays, aesthetics, or performing arts can't be explained in just Korea or Korean art. --Appletrees (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Northern Ireland geeography stubs split

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 all including redirect

The recently discovered {{fermanagh-geo-stub}} makes me think that the time might be right for separate upmerged templates for each of Northern Ireland's six counties. Given that there are closing in on 500 stubs, it's not urgent, but it's also likely that most if not all of them would reach the 60 stub level. I'd like to propose:

  • {{Antrim-geo-stub}}
  • {{Down-geo-stub}}
  • {{Londonderry-geo-stub}}
  • {{Armagh-geo-stub}} and
  • {{Tyrone-geo-stub}},

with separate categories for any reaching 60 stubs (of the form "County Foo geography stubs").

It's plausible that the Londonderry one may have to both be protected and have a (similarly protected) redirect from {{Derry-geo-stub}}, too. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support no feeling wither way regarding redirect. Waacstats (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully if we create both the template and redirect, people will take the hint and leave well-enough alone. But maybe I'm clinging to too much residual optimism... Alai (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Or more likely war over which template is the main one and which the redirect but that could just be my natural pessimism coming through. Waacstats (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - WP standard is to use Co.Londonderry (compromising by using Derry for the city name), though perhaps wording the template's text to read "County (London)derry" would survive without too much mauling. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] '00s indie album subtypes

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

Doesn't seem more than the other day when we were splitting these off from the "rock" type, but they're not considerably oversized in their own right. The following look to be viable:

Indie pop looks fairly straightforward; the Canadian type raises the issue of whether re-splitting by country is something we want to start doing; the last two might be "sideways" moves, rather than strictly subtypes. Alai (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support all the album splits proposed along with these, with the exception of Canadian indie rock (unless it is a recognised sub genre and not just indie albums from Canada). As some one who cleared a load out of the respective parents I feel I better get my shovel out on these. Waacstats (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] '00s hip hop album subtypes

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 proposed

Oversized parent. Not sure how useful these are likely to be, but they seem at least fairly clear-cut. Might not to do all three at once, given overlap issues. Alai (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a Cat:2000s rap album stubs would be of more use. (I assume -eastcoast-, -westcoast and -gangstarap- would be used for templates. Waacstats (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't have a separate Cat:rap albums -- or to be precise, it's a mostly-empty category redirect -- I assume on the theory that for genre purposes "rap" and "hip hop" are synonymous. If there's a viable distinction to be had, feel free. Alai (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point scrub that idea Waacstats (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, because there does seem to me to be at least a connotational difference, and several of the narrower subcats use the term "rap", while others go with "hip hop". But I'd at least check with the musos, and look into creating a corresponding permcat, first... Alai (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] '00s electronic album subtypes

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

Or at least, possible, alleged "sub" types, given the twisty maze of genre categories. At any rate, of the (oversized) population of Cat:2000s electronic album stubs, these are counts by genre cats. Also caveats about overlaps between each of these. Alai (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Cat:2000s hip hop single stubs

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

The result of the debate was create

2000s singles are oversized again, this would help somewhat, at 74. Lemme hear y'say "speediable on pattern of parent types!" Alai (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As you say Speedy Waacstats (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Remaining Californian counties: region?

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 recently noticed that we were missing a handful of the Californian counties, in the scheme we have to upmerge them to somewhat ad hoc regions. I came across this for Lassen, which for the moment I've just created upmerged to the parent. Looks like the whole NEern 'corner' is missing, though. Anyone have any bright ideas? Alai (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

support creating any missing county templates as for what to do with them?? Waacstats (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Shasta Cascade article lists several counties as part of that region, including Lassen. HTH, Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Created Cat:Shasta Cascade geography stubs, three more templates, and repointed an additional four existing one to this more specific category. Alai (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Proposals, April 2008

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

[edit] Cat:Sex occupation stubs / {{Sex-job-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create as sex-industry-stub &c

Sub cat of both Cat:Occupation stubs ({{Job-stub}}) and Cat:Sex stubs ({{Sex-stub}}), currently 165 articles assessed as stubs per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Sex_work_work_group#Recognized_content all of which fall completely into both categories, new active project is working on creating and assessing more. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category name should probably be Cat:sex worker stubs, to correspond to the permcat, assuming I have the right one. (Template name seems fine as proposed.) Alai (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, with category name as suggested by Alai. 165 different articles on different sex occupations? My upbringing has been more sheltered than I thought... Grutness...wha? 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoooah... back up there. the majority of those 165 articles are bio-stubs! These aren't about sex occupations at all - they are about people working in sex-related industries. Perhaps a {{sex-bio-stub}} is needed instead, with somee carefully worded caqtegory name to follow suit. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The same category name might be the most appropriate, anyway; that's probably a more appropriate template name, though. This is going to be a "sensitivity required" area in application, though: as far as glamour models, porn actors and strippers are concerned, "sex worker" would probably be seen as something of a euphemism-downgrade... Alai (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed category name is that it does sound like it's about the occupations themselves. But as to what a good title for it would be, I haven't a clue. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's admittedly a "feature" of our convention to avoid double plurals that it eliminates any distinction in the permcat space between cat:X and cat:Xs. (Which I suppose is why we ended up with such a tortured alternative to {{cl|ship stubs.) But the contents of Cat:sex workers is what we're talking about here, so I think we should stick with it. (In this case, Cat:sex worker is just a redirect to the same thing, so there no manifest ambiguity, just a possible lack of optimal clarity.) Alai (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The above points are valid. I've asked some of the project members to stop by here. We need to get straight what we're dealing with. The project rejected the name "sex worker" as being too restrictive and too focused on bios; but you're correct that is where the current perm-cat structure would take you and where most of the stubs are. On the other hand, it is limiting/awkward for the project to have to place stubs in either a bio focused cat or continue to dual list in Cat:sex stubs and Cat:occupation stubs; which was kind of the point to this proposal - avoiding dual listing in the generic cats that is. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As the individual responsible for most of the tagging to date, I acknowledge that most of the existing stubs are bios, because the bios are what have been in the first listed categories of the groups' parent category. But I think I count 77 stubs which are variations on "Prostitution in (X)" articles. If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work work group/to do, you'll see several more which haven't yet been created. I think we can probably agree to tagging only those which are not bios with the main stub. The others could be tagged with a "sex-industry-bio" stub, instead. I think there are enough of them as well. And, for what it's worth, there is still a lot of tagging to be done, so there should be several more articles appearing in the next few days as well. I'll work on the tagging kinda concertedly over the next few days to help people get a better idea of what we're dealing with here. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What about the name (and scope) Cat:sex industry stubs? That also corresponds to a permcat (Cat:sex industry -- surprise!), would be inclusive of bios and job-stubs (and more besides). Still would require "sensitivity of application", however. If we just want bios, but don't want to restrict it to "workers", Cat:sex industry biography stubs would be within the normal bounds of such generalisation (after the pattern of the sport-bios, etc). `Alai (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion and I'd support it as a name, though again we have to be careful with "sensitivity of application", as Alai puts it. For example, if the article on Alfred Kinsey were a stub (no double-entendre intended), then it would make sense to categorise it in here, though I doubt anyone would describe him as working "in the sex industry". Grutness...wha? 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
He'd be more in the way of a "sex-bio-stub", if we were to make things as general as that. I'm not sure how great either Cat:sex biography stubs or Cat:sexuality biography stubs would be as names.... Alai (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Cat:Sex industry stubs is the way to go. I missed that permcat when I started this, though I had known once upon a time that it was out there. As for sex industry biographies, if there are enough writers maybe it would be a good idea to create a template {{erotica-writer-stub}} to feed into Cat:Sex industy stubs and Cat:erotica writers via a stub cat - that might solve at least part of the "sensitivity" concerns. I agree with Alai though that a Kinsey-type stub should probably be something more general - sex research isn't really part of the "sex industry" as one would likely normally conceive it, even if the researchers get paid for their work. Since our task force isn't really handling those, I don't really know whether they need stub cats and templates or not. Probably should leave that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Also bear in mind that while we do try to follow permcats when they're systematic (and one hopes, sane), they're not by any means set in stone (and in some cases, are considerably more ad hoc and unsystematic than stub types), so if there's a clear need for a slightly different scope, that works sensibly with other article-space categories... Alai (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I could agree to the "sex industry" type for both the biographical and general articles. My one major application qualm would be to the articles about notable people's mistresses, as many people would not find them to be particularly involved in any sort of "sex industry". Don't know at this point if a {{courtesan stub}} would have enough to justify it, but it might be one of the least objectionable phrasings for such subjects. Would also possibly agree to other templates, depending on how many stubs we actually find. Still working on that, though. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Cat:royal mistresses are under Cat:courtesans and prostitutes, which is under Cat:sex industry, which is I think slightly misleading -- but that's the category system for you. As far as living people are concerned, definite BLP concerns area. Alai (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
...and if such a stub were created, it would of course be {{Courtesan-stub}} (with a hyphen :) Grutness...wha? 01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Cat:classical composition stubs

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

The result of the debate was create

Oversized; only feasible split seems to be by type of composition:

Due to overlap issues, we may not want to create all of these, however. One might have thought that by-era was a way to go, but categorisation by date seems to be near-nonexistant. Alai (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support symphony, concerto, and sonata as the most well-defined forms, plus easy to sort since the piece usually includes the word "symphony", etc. in the title. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Cat:Quebec geography stubs, by administrative region

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

Oversized. Alai (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy support per the odd precedant here and there. Waacstats (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Do these already have templates, because if not, some of those names look pretty difficult. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that I've come across. Beyond acute-free redirects, I'm not sure what to suggest: possibly additional redirects from {{Abitibi-geo-stub}}, {{Témiscamingue-geo-stub}}, and(/or) the like. At the risk of increasing the risk of possible confusion between Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi-Témiscamingue... Alai (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Cat:play stubs -- by year?

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

These are oversized. If we split by year, 20th and 21st century subtypes are immediately viable. Alai (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I assume by year you mean by decade, the same as with films. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, categorywise, by century, initially. Templates at decade granularity might be the forward-looking thing, though. Alai (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] {{years-stub}}

or something like that. For most pages on historical years, decades and centuries which are currently in stub form. Unless there's a good template already in existence. --Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ISTR we currently just use {{history-stub}}, but {{year-stub}} would seem to be a good idea. "Year-" rather than "Years-" be a better name - we don't use plurals in template names. I suspect most of them would need double stubbing (1844 in Foo would need both {{year-stub}} and {{Foo-stub}}, for instance). Grutness...wha? 23:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology stubs, by continent

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

We've had a separate category and template for European archaeology stubs for some time now, and the main Cat:Archaeology stubs is climbing past 500 - it might be time to consider making equivalent templates, at least, for Asia, Africa, Oceania, South America, and North America, and possibly also for the major sub-regions that stubs tend to be split into. I suspect that the Asian ones in particular will be well over the category threshold, too.

  • {{Africa-archaeology-stub}}
  • {{Asia-archaeology-stub}}
    • {{MEast-archaeology-stub}}
  • {{NorthAm-archaeology-stub}}
    • {{CentralAm-archaeology-stub}}
    • {{Caribbean-archaeology-stub}}
  • {{SouthAm-archaeology-stub}}
  • {{Oceania-archaeology-stub}}

The only bugbear in this scheme is that we have considerably overlapping stubs for Pre-Columbian studies, which might have to be looked at with regard to North, Central, and South American archaeology types. Any overlap between Mesoamerica-stub and CentralAm-archaeology-stub in particular is likely to be significant. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm - looks like we already have the South American one. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
PS - I've posted a note at WP:Mesoamerica, so hopefully we'll get some input on this from there. Grutness...wha? 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem especially urgent to me -- at least in the have-you-seen-the-todo-list-lately grand scheme of things, but would be reasonable enough. What do WP:ARCHAEO (there's a mnemonic shortcut for ya) have to say about it? Alai (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Good question - I'll post a note there too. It doesn't seem too urgent but that's largely because there's massive undersorting - a lot of the articles in the struct-stub hierarchy would be better in the archaeology stubs category; splitting this up would allow that to happen and would be a preemptive measure for the almost certain eventual split. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. Alai (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason for this change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I am also puzzled as to why you wouldn't use the Mesoamerican stub designation instead of trying to force an arbitrary classification (Central vs. North America) on these articles. Madman (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think all that's being proposed is to break up the generic Cat:archaeology stubs into more manageable subcats.
As far as any overlap in the Americas goes, I don't think there is necessarily a problem of Mesoamerica vs Central America. Most usually, cental american archaeology refers more to the study of what has been (inadequately) designated the Intermediate Area, ie the portion of lower Central America between the "classical" Mesoamerican cultures in the north and down to Panama and Colombia in the south. So a putative CentralAm-archaeology-stub could refer to this area, while {{mesoamerica-stub}} can retain its current focus.
From an archaeological point of view it might be appropriate to follow designated cultural/archaeological area divides (Mesoamerican, Macro-Chibchan, Andean, Amazonian, Arctic, Woodlands, etc) rather than purely continental ones, since as often as not these zones are studied separately. The same could go for Africa, Asia etc. But I s'pose given there aren't really any other groups besides WP:MESO organised to manage areas of pre-Columbian archaeological focus, it might be a moot point. If you do need to break out the overall stub category, for the Americas at least Nth, Sth, Caribbean, Mesoamerican, and Central (as above) wld do. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
CJLLW is right (no pun intended). Though the current system may not seem to be broke, the number of stubs is growing fairly rapidly, and unless there is a split of the current system, preferably by continent, we will soon have a main category that is too large to be confortably used by editors. Europe's archaeology stubs have already been split out for that reason. Creating separate templates for the other continents is simply a preemptive measure so that when the time comes it is easy to split out the other continents in the same way (and even then a case could possibly be made for making a halfway measure category for The Americas as a whole). As far as Mesoamerica/Central America is concerned, the main reason for suggesting this split on a per-continent/"standard region" basis is that that is the way other stub types are split, and it thus makes it easier to allocate parent categories (Central American archaeology stubs would, along with its equivalent geography and biography stubs etc, be a subcategory of Cat:Central America stubs, for instance). As such, it's more ammeasure for uniformity than anything else, though i do realise that stub types relating to cultural history such as these may well overlap or form their own natural subclassifications. in the case of mesoamerica, given its scope, it might be a natural subcategory of Cat:Central American archaeology stubs in any case, since its range is predominantly contained within the area usually thought of as Central America (Mexico being the main concern). Grutness...wha? 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] {{Geopolitical-term-stub}} or similar

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've been having a look through Cat:Geographical term stubs, which is rapidly rising again, and it looks like a lot of the strubs in there are for administrative land divisions and other geopolitical terms. There are plenty for a template, and possibly enough for a category ( a few of them would include: Administrative centre, Agency (country subdivision), Amalgamation (politics), Autonomous city, Autonomous district, Autonomous republic, Bairro, Baladiyah, Barony (country subdivision), and Census division). If a better name can be found for the template, that's fine, too, though the one listed above will do at a pinch. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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


[edit] England-footy-midfielder-1990s

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

Doing some cleanup involving addition of categories and stubs where appropriate, I've found a requirement for this stub. WP currently has stubs covering midfielders born in previous decades, but would now seem to require one to cover 1990s births. Admittedly, this probably only currently covers those born in 1990, but it will be required sooner or later. CultureDrone (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well speedy creation of the template, on the existing pattern. When you say "need", do you mean there's already 60 of these larval-form whippersnappers^W^Wfine sportspeople? If so, speedy the category as well, otherwise, wait and upmerge the template for now. Alai (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a relative newcomer at templates so what does 'upmerging templates' actually mean ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's where you have a stub template, but not it's own category, feeding into pre-existing categories instead. We usually use them when stub types don't reach 60 articles, as they prevent double-tagging, while keeping the number of stub categories down. SeveroTC 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Sorry for being cryptic. Look, for example at {{England-footy-midfielder-1900s-stub}}, etc. Alai (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Proposals, March 2008

March discussions have been moved to the archive.

[edit] Proposals, February 2008

February discussions have been moved to the archive

[edit] Proposals, January 2008

Discussions have been moved to the archive.

Languages