Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/June

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Proposals, June 2006[edit]

{{collegefootball-coach-stub}} / Category:College football coach stubs[edit]

There are nearly 300 stubs in the Category:American football coach stubs category and WP:CFB would like to move some of the college coaches into their own category and stub type so we can work on getting them out of stub status.--NMajdantalk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Make that {{collegefootball-coach-stub}} to follow the naming guidelines (since {{collegefootball-stub}} would be one parent) and I'd support this. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Changed.--NMajdantalk 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a collegefootball-bio-stub to be consistent with the pro football structure? In the pro structure, {{Amfootbio-stub}}/Category:American football stubs is a parent of {{amfoot-coach-stub}}/Category:American football coach stubs -BigDT 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked through the NFL yet, don't know if I'll have time this weekend. What are some other child's of the parent?--NMajdantalk 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Amfoot-bio-stub}} has these sub-cats:
Category:American football coach stubs
Category:Defensive back stubs
Category:Defensive lineman stubs
Category:Kicker stubs
Category:Linebacker stubs
Category:Offensive lineman stubs
Category:Quarterback stubs
Category:Running back stubs
Category:Tight end stubs
Category:Wide receiver stubs
That's probably excessive for college considering that we only get to keep them for four or five years ... but we could probably at least use {{collegefootball-bio-stub}}, with sub-stubs {{collegefootball-coach-stub}} and {{collegefootball-player-stub}} BigDT 02:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
If we have player and coach, what other bio would we need? As in, what would be use bio for? I was thinking coach, player, team, and the generic college football stub.--NMajdantalk 03:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Those types aren't (exclusively) for the pros, however, and they were created through need, due to the considerable size of the parent. Unless you're very sure in advance that any of the above pass threshold (60 articles), and/or that the college-bios are themselves in danger of being ovevrsized, just double-stub collegefootball-bio-stub with linebacker-stub (say), and it should be relatively easy to split them on that basis if later required. Alai 03:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A strong oppose on the idea of college football player stubs or a generic collegefootball-bio-stub. Almost every pro player plays football at the college level first, and there should be few articles about high school only players that pass the notability tests, so you'd be essentially duplicating the stubs. about the only other college football bio stub I can think of that might be worthwhile would be a {{collegefootball-award-bio-stub}} for the winners of the awards listed in {{College Football Awards}} that have stub articles. The reasoning here is same as why we have an {{Olympic-medalist-stub}} but no {{Olympic-bio-stub}}.
  • My biggest complaint about that is those awards are typically given to college seniors meaning they would be winning those awards and then entering the draft shortly thereafter. So, those stubs would change pretty quickly from {{collegefootball-award-bio-stub}} to one of the pro ones. Many articles are created with the anticipation of the player going into the draft and many articles are created for starters of name teams. See Adrian Peterson for example. He has never won an award, but don't you think he is notable for an article? Same thing for Ted Ginn, Jr. and Brady Quinn. I still stand by my recommendation for coach, team, player, and generic stubs.--NMajdantalk 14:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The existing stub types are for notable pro and college football players, heck there are even arena football players marked with them. Also, it is permitted to have more than one stub on an article if they are both pertinenent. So an article with {{collegefootball-award-bio-stub}} and {{quarterback-stub}} would be perfectly ok, and a notable college QB who hasn't won any awards with the {{quarterback-stub}} woudl be acceptible. Unless you mean to restrict the collegefootball-bio-stubs to just active college players, which would be contrary to our usual practices for stubs, I can't see where any practical benefit would be gained from a {{collegefootball-quarterback-stub}} that would absorb >90% of the stubs in {{quarterback-stub}}.
      • I'm not asking for stubs just for college quarterbacks or college running backs. I understand your argument against collegefootball-bio-stub, so I still request a collegefootball-coach-stub for active and former collegiate coaches.--NMajdantalk 11:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No comments in a couple days. Are there any complaints against creating {{collegefootball-player-stub}} or {{collegefootball-coach-stub}}. The latter is self-explanatory. The former is used for notable players who are not yet in the draft (see examples above) and for notable players in college who did not have a notable professional career (i.e. Jason White or Eric Crouch).--NMajdantalk 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm still against {{collegefootball-player-stub}}. The limited scope just doesn't follow what the regular categories do, nor do I see how it could be enforced. On the other hand, {{collegefootball-coach-stub}} has simnce it was forst proposed had my support and continues to do so, since the overlap problem is not anywhere near as bad. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
            • One last appeal for {{collegefootball-player-stub}}. There are many players who were successful in the pros and were much more notable for their collegiate careers (Brian Bosworth). There are many players who are notable who are still playing in college. These are the people that would classified under this category. If it fails, I guess we will continue to just tag them with the generic collegefootball stub. Since there have not been any complaints for the coach stub, I will create that.--NMajdantalk 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

{{spy-stub}} / Category:Spy stubs[edit]

Stubsense reports 181 stubs in Category:Spies of which 54 are in Category:Fictional secret agents and spies and thus not appropriate for this stub type. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had actually been considering proposing an {{espionage-stub}}, alternatively {{intelligence-stub}} or {{mil-intelligence-stub}}. Would it not be better to use one of those as a parent and call the stub {{espionage-bio-stub}} to be more inclusive. Because it would be unclear wether {{spy-stub}} would include directors of the CIA, eg.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been putting people like CIA directors in mil-bio-stub for now, but I agree that it would be nice to separate them out from that group. Problem is there is no Category:Intelliegence officers, Category:Intelliegence agents, Category:People in intelligence agencies, or any other variant. (I have found several categories for people from individual intelligence agencies,) There is an Category:Spies and spies need not be working for a government (or more than one in the case of double or triple agents). I wouldn't be opposed to having a broader stub type, but I'd like to first see the regular categories set up to do use a more broadly scoped stub.

  • I'd prefer the espionage-bio-stub too. the word 'spy" can be seen as derogatory and the wider scope of the other name is a bit better. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with the term espionage is that it can also refer to industrial espionage, e.g.. --CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

{{motorcycleracing-stub}} / Category:Motorcycle racing stubs[edit]

Stubsense reports 93 stubs in Category:Motorcycle racing. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Racing game stub[edit]

At the moment, all racing video game stubs are classed as "sports". I think there needs to be a new type of stub specifically for racing. Something like {{racing-cvg-stub}} would be fine. +Falcon9x5 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Category:Sports game stubs is less than two listings pages, so hardly urgent; are there 60 such stubs? Alai 07:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say it's urgent, but yes, I count over 60 (maybe up to 80) games that could be reclassified if the stub existed. +Falcon9x5 08:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, then. Alai 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

British MP stubs[edit]

It's getting overlarge again, despite having the Scots segregated. I suppose the category could buy some more time with a Wales-MP-stub and an Ireland-MP-stub, but not much. I think we need to bite the bullet as has been done with some of the music stubs and group by time. UK-MP-21C-stub, UK-MP-20C-stub, etc. For people who were MP's during the indicated century. I haven't done any sort of a census, but I expect that the 21st, 20th, and 19th centuries will all yield enough stubs to warrant subtypes, and possibly the 17th and 18th as well. Suggestions for better names or classification schemes are of course welcome. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the music stubs, the new templates would probably be {{2000s-UK-MP-stub}}, {{1900s-UK-MP-stub}}, etc. Amalas =^_^= 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really, the music stubs go by decades, and I don't think we want to divide the MP's up that finely,and even if we did, it should probably be on a per parliament basis not a per decade one. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Currently Polish battles are stubbed with two stubs: Poland-hist-stub and the general battle-stub. Considering we already have several nation-specific battle stubs, and Poland was involved in many Russian, we are getting double stubs with battle-stub and Russia-buttle-stub (as for example at Battle of Nasielsk. Quick look at Category:Polish history stubs shows 47 battle articles at 'B' letter, likely there are few more categorized under locations (other letters). There are at least two releated Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Polish military history task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland. This stub cat can be put in Category:Battles of Poland and as a substub of Poland-hist-stub and Poland-mil-stub (discussed below).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I feel tepid either way about this one; the parent's no longer a pressing case, and on your numbers it's a little undersized. But we have worse offenders than this in that regard (even just in the Poland-stub hierarchy...), and it would tidy up some double-stubbings, as P. says... Alai 15:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You still can't forget the {{PolishAirForce-stub}}, can you :) Anyway, I'm all for this one. It's simply easier and there are zillion battles more on our to do list (three major 20th century wars still pending, not to mention earlier struggles). //Halibutt 10:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems like a good idea, particularly if battles from the earlier conflicts (Thirteen Years' War? The Deluge?) start getting stubbed out. Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. --Lysytalk 17:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

After browsing through the Category:Poland stubs (about 500 stubs) I am sure that there is more then 60 that could be classified as culture-related stubs (under Category:Polish culture) - many articles are about architecture (buildings), books, food, and similar issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm dubious; it's not currently needed for size reasons, and I think it's much too broadly scoped. I was similarly uncovinced by Category:India-culture-stub, though of course Rama's Arrow created it anyway. Alai 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be broad, but so are Poland-geo-stub or Poland-bio-stub. We have to start from a broader category and then go into deeper ones. I would expect Poland-lit-stub (for literature) may be a good subcat in the future (we already have quite a few Polish book stubs), and possibly some others. Poland-edu-stub would be rather good too, considering most of Pl universities are stubs, and we are still before the flood of pl high-schools and such. For now it seems like a good idea to separate a significant chunk of Poland-stubs into a new category, as Poland-stub is still basically a 'cat for all bar people, history articles and geographical locations).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • geos and bios are at least rather clearly defined and more-or-less of one piece, where "culture" is almost open-endedly vague, and risks ending up "poland-misc-stub". Would you like to place a wager as to how many categories are in the sub-tree rooted at {[cl|Culture}}? My money's on "almost all of them". We've managed quite happily without {{US-culture-stub}}, {{UK-culture-stub}}, {{Germany-culture-stub}} or for any of the really sizable per-country types. Any of the other types you mention I'd be glad to support, as and when they reach threshold, which I'd recommend waiting for, rather than doing this when there's no urgent (if any) need. Alai 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Lysytalk 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Category:Culture stubs has been used primarily as a dumping ground for anything that ain't a bio, geo, or company and doesn't have a stub of its own. It's poorly integrated into the stub heirarchy and before we start creating national subtypes of this poorly used stub type, we ought to fix it first. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose for the reasons stated by Caerwine. "X culture stubs" basically simply means "X stubs that don't fit elsewhere" - culture is too amorphous a term to really fit easily or properly within the stub system. I've no objection to the two other Polish proposals immediately above and below, but not this one. Grutness...wha? 08:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Polish military history task force. Currently the stubs related to Poland military don't have a central category to even easily count them all: for example, Tadeusz Kościuszko Land Forces Military Academy is classified as {{Poland-geo-stub}} and {{euro-university-stub}}, while Polish 19th Infantry Division is a {{Poland-hist-stub}} and {{Euro-mil-stub}}. Overview of Category:Military of Poland reveals 11 stubs: Chorągiew, Kopia, Leśni, Military Information Services, Poczet, Polish First Army, Polish Legions, Polnische Wehrmacht, Pospolite ruszenie, Rota (formation), Tadeusz Kościuszko Land Forces Military Academy. That means that about 40% of articles in that category are stubs. That category has 13 subcats, and even assuming all stubs are categorized in this hierarchy I am a search through them will find more then the necessary 30 stubs. Please also note the rich Category:Poland military biographical stubs and Category:Polish Air Force stubs, which cleary indicate that their overcat would benefit from its won stub category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure, seems like an obvious choice. //Halibutt 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Been suggesting this for months, including as a means of dealing with aforementioned (unproposed, undersized) air force cat. Alai 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Lysytalk 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm surprised it hasn't been proposed before. Valentinian (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

{{art-bio-stub}} / Category:Visual arts occupation biography stubs[edit]

This stub is intended for art collectors, art critics, art dealers, art historians, etc. Quite a number of these, tho they are rather undersorted at present, due to the reluctance of some people to double stub a bio stub with a non-bio stub. The primary non-stub parent would be Category:Visual arts occupations and I could see also making this a child of the various subcategories thereof that a deal with people in specific occupations. Category:Artist stubs would become a child stub of this one. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • as someone in a visual arts occupation, support (assuming there are, as you say, plenty of stubs). Grutness...wha? 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian state stub templates[edit]

Please find below a list of missing stub templates and their respective categories for Indian state geography articles. The list of approved state stub templates can be found here.

Templates: {{ArunachalPradesh-geo-stub}} {{Assam-geo-stub}} {{Chhattisgarh-geo-stub}} {{Goa-geo-stub}} {{Haryana-geo-stub}} {{JammuKashmir-geo-stub}} {{Manipur-geo-stub}} {{Meghalaya-geo-stub}} {{Mizoram-geo-stub}} {{Nagaland-geo-stub}} {{Orissa-geo-stub}} {{IndianPunjab-geo-stub}} {{Sikkim-geo-stub}} {{Tripura-geo-stub}} {{Uttaranchal-geo-stub}} {{Chandigarh-geo-stub}} {{DadraNagarHaveli-geo-stub}} {{DamanDiu-geo-stub}} {{Lakshadweep-geo-stub}} {{Pondicherry-geo-stub}} {{Delhi-geo-stub}}

Categories: Category:Arunachal Pradesh geography stubs Category:Assam geography stubs Category:Chhattisgarh geography stubs Category:Goa geography stubs Category:Haryana geography stubs Category:Jammu and Kashmir geography stubs Category:Manipur geography stubs Category:Meghalaya geography stubs Category:Mizoram geography stubs Category:Nagaland geography stubs Category:Orissa geography stubs Category:Punjab geography stubs Category:Sikkim geography stubs Category:Tripura geography stubs Category:Uttaranchal geography stubs Category:Chandigarh geography stubs Category:Dadra and Nagar Haveli geography stubs Category:Daman and Diu geography stubs Category:Lakshadweep geography stubs Category:Pondicherry geography stubs Category:Delhi geography stubs

Reason for some blue links: I am working on a bot that creates India town articles. During the process, I created some templates without proposing here. The bot is currently stopped and waiting for this proposal to get approved. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - These are all basically sub categories of {{India-geo-stub}}. Similar stubs already exist under this category. Please see Category:India stubs for a complete list -- Lost 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Even I support giving the bot a go ahead flag. Since the bot will be creating thousands of articles, most of the stubs will be well populated and useful. Note: The bot in question is User:Ganeshbot. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • support with caveat. Separate geo-stub categories are only created when there are 60-65 existing stubs for them (which is why some Indian states have stub categories and some don't). Given that creating town articles, I suspect that all these states will exceed 65 stubs, but if there are any that don't (Goa, perhaps?) only make the template and direct it back into the main Category:India geography stubs for now. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    I think it should be very easy to get 65+ stubs for almost all states and UTs. There may be a problem to get to that amount for union territories such as Lakshadweep and Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and I feel it would look odd to have all states having their own templates while one or two miss the bus. And I can easily populate 100+ locations in Goa :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • On templates: I completely agree, and have often argued for templatising on as consistent a basis as possible whenever a "split" is started. But this shouldn't be extended to an alleged need for separate categories, whether there's the number or not. In this case, I don't especially doubt there soon will be, but prior creation of categories without "viable" numbers of existing articles would a highly dubious precedent to set. Wouldn't take long for "we're about to create 60 articles on this" to degenerate to "there ought to be 60 articles on this", per Ambi's extremely dubious "systematic bias" objections to the threshold requirement. And given that the effort to populate a category from a template after the fact is minimal... Alai 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support templates only, as precedent is to create categories only when they're of suitable size -- which there's much history of doing highly prematurely. I note that several existing subcats are undersized, and have missing parents and such like. Once they hit 60, they can be easily recategorised from the template. Alai 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to Grutness, Alai: Can I go ahead and create templates and categories for now? After the bot has completed its run (about 5000 articles), I will redirect the categories that have under 65 articles to the main Category:India geography stubs. Is that acceptable? Please advise. - Ganeshk (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd strongly prefer you did it the other way around, as I suggested: create the templates only, upmerged, use/populate them, and allow consideration of whether separate catgories after the fact. I assume you don't mean redirect the categories, but rather the templates, but either way, creating undersized categories is a nuisance. Alai 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The other state stub templates have category included in them. Should I add Category:India geography stubs as the included category then for these templates? - Ganeshk (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • There are a number of a stub types that were proposed and already pass the threshold; there are some... others, as I already noted. It would have been better in these latter cases too to create "upmerged" templates, i.e. to Category:India geography stubs, as you say. Splitting after separate templatisation is easy enough, if called for, after all. Alai 05:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup - I agree. Make the templates, but have them categorise to Category:India geography stubs for now. It will be easy to change over any that pass threshold (a simple template edit) once we know that is the case. Don't make the categories until we know that they do. Grutness...wha? 07:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I created all the templates and updated Category:India geography stubs page. As discussed, I up-merged stubs that have less than 65 articles to Category:India geography stubs. Thanks for the suggestions and help with this. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

{{dancer-stub}} / Category:Dancer stubs[edit]

Category:Dance stubs is gettting close to being overlarge and a fair number of the articles are biographies. Semms like an obvious split that shoudl have happened long ago. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The category in question is up to 683 stubs, so it could be beneficially split. Aelfthrytha 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It would be very easy to classify articles into the new category. --Sbluen 04:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Punter-stub}} / Category:Punter stubs[edit]

This deals with the inclusion of punters in American football, and would be part of the American football biography stubs category. Looking at the main stub listing page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_football_biography_stubs), there are categories for each position except punters. There are enough punters with regular stubs that could be moved into the proposed category. There is already a stub category for kickers, but that seems to deal with placekickers and not punters, which do different duties during games. Burgwerworldz 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm. not really happy with the name. "Punter" means something completely different to much of the English-speaking world (see Punter). I'd suggest either a slightly less ambiguous name (if possible) or widening the scope of the kickers category (if it's not too big). Grutness...wha? 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems likely to be marginal-at-best on size, and my understanding was that the kicker-stub proposal was intended to take in both placekickers and punters. I suggest we make that explicitly the case, either way. I'd suggest a separate template or redirect from the tag name, though there is the ambiguity issue that Grutness mentions. Alai 03:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Freemasonry-stub}} / Category:Freemasonry stubs[edit]

There's been a bit of discussion on where stubs relating to Freemasonry should go. Some are currently {{org-stub}}s (those that can be considered organizations) and some have a generic stub template (terms and other Freemasonry-related but non-org articles). Seeing as there is now a WikiProject Freemasonry, many stub articles relating to Freemasonry, and many more to come, I think there's good reason for this stub type. OzLawyer 00:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that something similar to this is at SFD... presumably connected? If there's a Wikiproject then it lowrs the threshold, but I'd still like to know that there are a reasonable m=number of stubs (30-40, say) before supporting this. If there are, then I'll support it (there may be a few marked with things like occult-stub or magick-stub, too). Grutness...wha? 01:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I kind of forgot that stub types had to be proposed. :( As for enough stubs, I'm pretty sure there are at least 30, although I'm going to have to go try to check. OzLawyer 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Checked, and verified. I'm sorry to say that the vast majority of Freemasonry-related articles are stubs (many with no stub tags at all). There's easily 40. There's going to be a heck of a lot of work for our new WikiProject. OzLawyer 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have started the Wikiproject, the number of stubs is definitely going to grow. It is exactly because the stub articles we have created are getting tagged with everything from occult-stub to religion-stub (or in some cases, an inappropriate history-stub on articles that are not history) that those of us on the project are realizing that there is a need for one that states the category in a plain and simple fashion. Blueboar 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
StubSense indicates that this is at least plausible: [1]. OTOH, whackiness in the perm-cats means a fair number will be false positives (e.g., anything connected to Robert Burns, for example), and overwhelmingly they seem to be people-stubs, but on the whole I'd be in favour (so long as this is only used on things and people primarily notable in connection with Freemasonry. Alai 03:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Mmm. good points. As far as the "it will grow" is concerned, we usually wait until there are sufficient stubs to start with, but it looks like there are quite a few dotted around various categories. BTW, would this stub type be limited purely to freemasonry, or would it included related orders such as the rosicrucians +c? Grutness...wha? 04:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Masonic Rosicrucianism would be included, as it is part of the Scottish Rite (and in the York Rite too, I think), along with things like Masonic Knights Templar (in the York Rite). But those organizations and people in them which have borrowed from Freemasonry, or which Freemasonry has borrowed from, but which do not claim to be Masonic, such as the O.T.O., Orange Order, and the like, would not (although Freemasons are active in editing many of these subjects). OzLawyer 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a stub related to Freemasonry. I (and others) have been trying to sort this article: Hiram Abiff for at least a week now, to no avail. Reli-stub was removed ("Freemasonry is not a religion"), occult-stub was removed as vandalism, org-stub was removed, hist-stub was removed, and so on and so forth. Having its own stub would simplify things greatly, so I support. Amalas =^_^= 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. A WP exists, but such a stub should only be used on biography articles, if the person in question is primarily associated with Freemasonry (excluding ordinary members). If we can find 30 relevant articles, then why not? Anyway, it needs a clear and proper name (not {{Fm-stub}}). Valentinian (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The proposal is for {{freemasonry-stub}}, not the {{fm-stub}} I created in haste. As for the tag on biographical articles, I wouldn't dare put it on the pages of famous people who just happen to also be Freemasons (plus, those are likely not going to be stub articles, anyway). I can find 30+ Freemasonry stub articles without even including a single biographical article. There are many articles regarding the Catholic church's proclamations against Freemasonry, several Grand Lodge articles, and articles on appendant bodies and specific rites. Also some terms specific to Freemasonry. OzLawyer 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There have been no real objections, so I created the stub (well, moved {{fm-stub}} to {{freemasonry-stub}}. OzLawyer 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

{{SouthAm-writer-stub}} / Category:South American writer stubs[edit]

I sort of proposed this farther down the page, but I thought it needed to be formally proposed separately.

I am proposing a {{SouthAm-writer-stub}} that would function similarly to {{Euro-writer-stub}}. There are a lot of South American countries that don't have enough for their own stub, but would easily fall under that. Also, Argentina-writer-stub and Brazil-writer-stub would be sub-stubs of that as well. Amalas =^_^= 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us an approximate countof how many there are? I expect there will be enough for a stub, but would like more information. Aelfthrytha 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Using South America#Territories and divisions as a guide (and including the transcontinental countries), a manual count of Category:Writer stubs yields 54 stubs.

  • Bolivia: 4
  • Chile: 13
  • Colombia: 9
  • Ecuador: 4
  • Guyana: 7
  • Peru: 2
  • Uruguay: 5
  • Venezuela: 4
  • Netherlands Antilles: 2 (transcontinental)
  • Trinidad & Tobago: 2 (transcontinental)
  • Panama: 2 (transcontinental)

This does not include going through each country's bio-stub category and checking if there are un-sorted writers in there, so there could potentially be more than that. I hope that was enough information. Amalas =^_^= 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Out of curiosity, what is the consensus here? Amalas =^_^= 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Borderline on size, but as that's probably an underestimate, the parent is forever threatening to be oversized, and as there will be sub-cats, I'd say it'd be useful and sensible: go for it. Alai 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Created, listed at WP:STUBS and populated. Amalas =^_^= 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

{{planning-stub}} / Category:Urban studies and planning stubs[edit]

We've just pruned Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning from Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, ostensibly to sort out articles in Category:Urban studies and planning. I haven't counted all the stubs or should-be stub articles but the category contains 30 1st layer subcategories (and numerous sub-sub categories) 335 articles are in the root category. I counted a representative sample (those beginning with A) 80% are or should be stubs. Is there an easy way to count these rather than me trawl through the 1000 odd (estimated) articles, and can we have a stub to deal with them? By the way one of the sub-sub categories is Category:Town and country planning in the United Kingdom which already has it's own stub - {{UK-planning-stub}}--Mcginnly 09:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SupportI'd be happy to see a stub for this - but you knew I'd say that :). It does seem odd that "Town and country planning in the United Kingdom" has its own stub when urban planning itself doesn't.
Re counting stubs... but AutoWikiBrowser might at least make it a lot easier to go through the categories (but it's still partly manual). Certainly it should make it easier to add the stub template later, I'd imagine. I don't know if there's an easier way.
btw here are a few articles I've found so far:
  1. Estate (area)
  2. Greenway (landscape)
  3. Mixed-use development
  4. Retirement home
  5. Spatial planning
  6. Site planning (not sure if this is urban planning or architecture...?)
  7. Orangi Pilot Project (a cooperative sewer project in a slum - I think this counts as urban studies & planning...?)
  • Support - especially if there's any way of widening the scope slightly to include civil engineering, of which we seem to have quite a few stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. I don't think there is a way to widen the scope in the direction you suggest, I would stick with using {{architecture-stub}} for now. BTW we're running a wikiproject for architecture under which we anticipate future developments to include wikiprojects for civil and structural engineering - perhaps you'd be interested in joining?--Mcginnly 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point about there being a lot of civil engineering stubs - but I'll second Mcginnly's suggestion - civil engineering articles would be better with {{architecture-stub}}, until they get their own stub (which they probably should, soon). Civil eng is obviously related to planning, but it seems to me that there's a clear distinction. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I am only a user of planning, and not capable of adding substantially to articles in this area. I think there is a need to avoid categories becoming too wide; it is better to cross-reference. if we need an architecture stub or a civil engineering (or perhaps just engineering) stub, let's have one. Peterkingiron 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NB: One thing that seems to have been automatically assumed here but is worth spelling out - this template will need its own stub category (e.g., Category:Urban studies and planning stubs) - I notice that the proposal title lists the main (non-stub) category. Grutness...wha? 11:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that grutness - I've amended the title accordingly.--Mcginnly 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Planning is a distinct discipline which for clarities sake needs its own stub Bjrobinson 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

{{US-drummer-stub}} / Category:United States drummer stubs[edit]

US musician stubs are oversized (even more than US bio) and this seems like one of the more pressing subcategory omissions. Crystallina 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. In many of these cases, we may need to consider country-genre-instrument-bio-stub templates before too long (no groaning in back). Alai 17:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • mutter mumble...why are drummers in Category:Musician stubs?...mutter mumble... Grutness...wha? 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I say, I say, I say, why are all drummer jokes one liners? Alai 05:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, I'll bite. Why are all drummer jokes one liners? Grutness...wha? 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • So that the bass player gets 'em. Alai 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • ba-doomb-ching! Grutness...wha? 08:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • American, not United States please! I see no reason to ignore the fact that parent will be Category:American drummers. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind that the category is being populated from a template beginning with "US-"; that the (already barking mad) argument against "United States" being used attributively ("'United States' isn't an adjective!") hardly stands, when the whole phrase is being used in that manner; and that "American", as with "British", have applicablity, scoping, and POV issues. I strongly urge we use "United States" and "United Kingdom" consistently in all stub category names. Alai 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • None of the arguments you bring to bear appear to have accepted by the nan-stub category naming conventions. The only reason I can think of for using "United States" and "United Kingdom" instead of following the examples of the non-stub parent categories is so that there will be a rough alignment alphabetically of template names and category names, in which case, we'd best replace all the "Dutch" stubs with "Netherlands" stubs as well. Frankly that argument just doesn't cut my mustard. However, lest anyone think that I'm monomaniacal about using Fooian forms, I've put up a proposal over on the project's talk page that calls simply for sometimes using Fooian X stubs and sometimes using Foo X subs, with the choice being controlled by whether the non-stub parent uses Fooian or Foo. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not necessary you think of any: I've just given you three, two of them particular to stub types, so I wouldn't expect them to be reflected on the non-stubs. (The third one is not, I must admit, but I'm still not enthused about following the permies off a cliff.) Dutch -> Netherlands is fine with me, though in that case there's no scoping issue. But I agree on the non-mustard-penetrating properties of your alphabetisation argument-of-sorts. In the meantime, we do have guidelines for creating stub categories at the names they're proposed at. What reason is there for slavishly following the corresponding parent, anyway? The choice of adjective or noun phrase is in that context, just one of the syntax of the category wording: if the wording is changed, why would the part of speach say the same? Likewise, it's not necessary that people even remember them, with reference to the perms or otherwise, since that's not how they're populated, obviously. Alai 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • What reason for following the corresponding parent? I can think of several.
            1. It undercuts our complaints people making non-standard stubs if we act with disregard for the rest of the Wiki community. Why should they care about what we think if show no respect for what they think?
            2. It assists people in finding the correct non-stub category for the stub if the stub category name is consistently related to the parent. (We could be even more helpful here by changing them all from "X stubs" to "Stubs of X" so that we wouldn't have to mangle X by making it singular and getting rid of the prepositions, but I don't see that happening.)
            3. No reason has not been given for not doing so that doesn't involve disregard for what the category people consider to be good naming policy. You think the category people were wrong to accept the use of American and British and are arguing for overruling that decision when it comes to stub categories, but that alone is not sufficient justification for not playing nice with others.
            And please note that I'm not basing my argument on not using United States as an adjective. Using nouns as adjectives is perfectly good English grammar, tho in some cases it does sound strange because a regular adjective is used normally. (e.g. France company stubs)Caerwine Caerwhine 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not suggesting we act with disregard: the category names are formed differently, and using production rules for deriving one from the other is "over-interpreting" the existing guidelines (or policy: when on earth did that happen?). The "American" categories use a case-by-case mixture of that and "United States", on what one would be tempted to call an ad hoc basis, were it not now in effect systematised ad hoc (if one can imagine such a thing)). "Stubs of American people" and "Stubs of Military of the United States" would both be pretty horrible, so I don't feel the least urge to be "even more helpful" in that manner, you'll be unsurprised to hear. Finding the parent ought to be trivial, as in every case there should be cat-links between them. If one is trying to type it blind, it's still highly error prone, and hardly to be recommended (much less slavishly catered for), as "Exemplary widget stubs" or "Example widget stubs" could each equally be a child of "Widgets of ...", "in...", and various other permutations besides, so merely precluding one possibility is far from a big win. I was suggesting that you were deploying the "adjective" argument, just that others have used it thick and fast (mainly thick, I suppose), pretty much overriding the "careful usage in formal contexts. I may observe that many of the perm-cat names are indeed barking mad, but that's far from suggesting ignoring established (barking mad) consensus. I see no decision that's binding on every category name, regardless of application and textual form, so I don't see that I'm advocating "overruling" anything at all. As I say, I gave three reasons already, and none of them are aptly characterised in the manner you suggest. Alai 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Personally I don't care whether we use United States X or American X, but it should be consistent either way. Especially on stub categories with lots of subcategories (pardon the rhyme) such as US-bio, it just looks messy if it isn't. Plus it's difficult to remember which is American and which is United States. Crystallina 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

{{US-dramatist-stub}} & {{US-playwright-stub}} / Cat:American dramatist and playwright stubs[edit]

I was sorting the US-wrter-stubs and wondered why there was no playright stub for it. According to stub sence[2], it looks like there are at least 67 that could be put into this category. There was an orginal {{playright-stub}}, but it was redirected because at the time there was a push to split by geography instead of occupation. What do you think? I think a US-short-story-writer-stub would also be useful, but the title is to long. --Rayc 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Greece-bio-stub}} & Cat:Ancient Greek people stubs[edit]

As there is a category setting apart fully fledged biographical articles of ancient Greek people and stub biographical articles of classical-era Greeks make up sizeable portions of Category:Greek people stubs and Category:Ancient Greece stubs, this would make working with category of stub articles easier. The proposed category Category:Ancient Greek people stubs would be a child of the three categories mentioned previously. PoptartKing 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Assuming sizeable means at least 60 articles, sounds like a good plan to me. Alai 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Bio cats are large, and dividing them into such clear-cut situtations like this one seems like a reasonable idea.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Created and populated. PoptartKing 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Jordan-stub}} & {{Jordan-geo-stub}}, and their categories[edit]

A whole country doesn't have its stub template, that's not good. I have created a template with that title, but I have deleted it after I noticed that shouldn't be done (unfortunately I was a bit too late). Now, about the need for such stub category, it is because I do create many articles related to Jordan, and some are stubs, so I mark them with {{stub}}, and then people change it to {{MEast-stub}}, or ...-geo-stub, etc.. Now I don't think that's very specific neither is it good. 86.108.105.31 13:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've done some fixing up and taken this to SFD. Look there for further discussion. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I know of a couple times that I've wished there was a Jordan-related stub, but I don't think there is enough to warrant its own. I'll try to help populate both, and we'll see how it goes. Amalas =^_^= 15:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've populated both as well as I can. {{Jordan-stub}} has over 60 articles, but {{Jordan-geo-stub}} does not (although it is fairly close). I hope that helps. Amalas =^_^= 16:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Amalas, I will try to add Jordan-geo-stub articles myself, and hopefully then a category could be created for better organisation as well. Eshcorp 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to the original comment, a lot of countries don't have their own stubs, since they do not have enough articles for separate stub types. As far as geography stubs are concerned, in the Middle East alone Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Syria do not have geo-stubs. They are proposed once they reach 65 stubs - which none of these yet has. Once they have 65, stub templates and categories will be made, but for now they are too sparsely populated wityh articles to be really useful for editors. Grutness...wha? 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
For my money, it's indeed not satisfactory that every country doesn't have its own stub template, regardless of size considerations. If we insist they remain entirely untagged until we hit the magic number, we're just creating needless double-handling: someone tags a stub with a country-geo-stub template, realizes it doesn't exist; finds out country-stub doesn't exist either, tags it as a regional-geo-stub; later, the stub type is created, and the stub has to be re-found, and re-sorted. Create stub templates as uniformly as possible, on the principle of minimising such wasted effort, and of "least surprising result". Alai 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The last time this came up, the counterargument to Alai's position was the reductio ad absurdam involving tiny Pacific Island nations, which does make very good sense. However, I think that a policy that keeps us from having country stub types for tiny countries which will never need them, but creates problems for medium-sized countries like Jordan which will almost certainly need national stub types (and at our current rate of growth, sooner rather than later,) is suboptimal. I would propose creating a country stub type for all countries above a certain geographic or population threshold, and making sure that all geo- and struct- (and so forth) stubs are multi-tagged with an appropriate national stub tag. We can set the policy boundaries to avoid the crazy cases (Kiribati or San Marino) and have a system for unexperienced editors that conforms to the principle of least surprise. Of course, a change in our policies may require discussion in a forum other than WP:WSS/P. --CComMack 09:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, {{SanMarino-stub}} exists and is above threshold Valentinian (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to Grutness, I do know that a lot of countries do not have their own stub templates, but that doesn't justify that they shouldn't. User:Amalas has populated about 60 articles with Jordan-stub, that's incredibly near to the 65-article requirement, and I am sure that there are 5 (and even more) articles that should be tagged with Jordan-stub. This means that a category for Jordan in general should be created. As for Jordan-geo stub, and all what has been said about it, I do agree that there aren't that much existing stub articles about it (though I believe they do exceed 30 at the moment), but that's only because people aren't creating articles related to the subject. There are many cities and areas in Jordan that could be categorized under "geographical", and I am sure that it would be useful for those who want to create and expand it to have one for Jordan, and I am sure that there are more than 65 possible articles about jordan related geography that could be written, and like most new articles, they need to be marked as stubs. I feel that those who are replying against this suggestion are only looking at the present situation and not the needs of the future. But I agree, articles must be created before anyone does anything final. Eshcorp 09:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'll add the following three lists, which might be useful in deciding which ones to make and which ones not to make:
  • countries with 31-65 geo-stubs, as at the last count - Republic of Congo, Sao Tome & Principe, Burundi, Seychelles, Comoros, Botswana, Madagascar, Mauritius, Benin, Senegal, Gambia, Niger, Bahamas, Jamaica, Haiti, Suriname, UAE, Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, Laos, Cambodia, Falkland Islands, Macedonia, Solomon Is, New Caledonia, Marshall Is, Vanuatu.
  • countries with 11-30 geo-stubs, as at the last count - Equatorian Guinea, Djibouti, British Indian Ocean Territories, Western Sahara, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mayotte, Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Barbados, St Vincent and the grenadines, St Kitts-Nevis, St Lucia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Dominica, Martinique, Antigua, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Bhutan, Macau, Kuwait, Qatar, South Georgia/South Sandwich Is, Jersey, Guernsey, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Samoa, Kiribati, Palau, Guam, Nauru, Cook islands, Fed. of Micronesia.
  • countries with 10 or fewer geo-stubs, as at the last count - Reunion, Netherland Antilles, Aruba, Grenada, US Virgin islands, Cayman Islands, Anguilla, Turks & Caicos Is, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, St Pierre and Miquelon, Spratly Islands*, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Vatican City, Northern marianas, Tonga, American Samoa, Pitcairn, Tuvalu, Wallis and Futuna, Norfolk Island, Tokelau, Niue, US unincorporated territories in the Pacific.
(*disputed territory claimed by about five countries. Your guess is as good as mine what to do with these)
(see User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying for exact numbers)
If we're to do this (which I'm still not convinced is a good idea), then at what point do we decide that a country should or shouldn't have a template? It sounds at least as arbitrary - if not more so - than setting a size and saying "all countries with more than X stubs get their own categories". What's more, we get back into the messy problems of things like Kosovo and - even messier - the Spratly Islands. Grutness...wha? 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (PS - as you can see from this, Kiribati's actually not too bad, at about 20 stubs)
I'd like to re-emphasize the difference between country-stub and country-geo-stub. I think our current policy on the latter is fine, and shouldn't be touched. However, I think having as many country-stub templates as we can justify is important for consistency purposes. I'm flexible on whether every template needs its own associated category. --CComMack 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Grutness, I do agree with you on your last post now. So I guess Jordan-geo-stub is another story, but about the {{Jordan-stub}}, I think there should not only be a template but a category for its articles, don't you agree? Eshcorp 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The "point" I'm suggesting is very un-arbitrary: it's "immediately". -geo-stubs have long since been split by country; the list of "all countries" is fairly clear, and only moderately controversial, so the expectation that any given <country>-geo-stub (or failing which, at least a <country>-stub) should exist is natural, reasonable, and furthermore, failing to meet this is unnecessarily giving casual stub-sorters the impression that "those arbitrary process-ridden WSS types have dropped the ball again for no readily apparent reason, what the heck are they playing at?". Plus if these already existed on a systematic basis in an already-upmerged state, it would tend to reduce the rate at which people unilaterally decided "there's no stub type for this whole country, I shall create a stub template and separate category for these two stubs I just wrote/found. Kosovo is a red herring, as it's a) already a problem, and b) not a country, so what's the interaction with any statement scoped in terms of "all countries"? Spratly Islands likewise: how does that even arise in this context? Give me a good reason why creating an upmerged {{Tuvalu-geo-stub}} is going to create massive problems for WSS (or anyone else, or indeed, problems of any size whatsoever) and I'll consider my point to have actually been addressed. Alai 14:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'm a little confused about what's going on, but what I see is this: For any given country, a <country>-stub should exist if it has 60/65+ articles. A <country>-geo-stub should only be split out at a later time if there are 60/65+ articles within its <country>-stub. Am I correct in this? Amalas =^_^= 15:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That's current practice, yes, and basically that's all that's directly applicable here. However, given that taken literally, the original request was for a stub template, the tenor of Grutness's "and a good thing too" reply transpired to be occasion for me to rehearse a long-standing beef about missing country-templates. (I'd probably be better off just directly proposing the remainder, or indeed creating some and seeing if there's really the actual will to delete them.) Alai 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, my "and a good thing too" tone, if you'll note, was specifically for the combination of stub templates and categories. The original comment may have stated templates, but the implication when proposals are made by those not directly involved in WP:WSS is usually that mention of one automatically assumes mention of the other. In principle, your suggestion of multiple templates/redirects makes a lot of sense (though some of the countries on the list above have precisely zero stubs, and one or two of them are definitely going to cause problems, as we've seen with Kosovo in the past). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that's indeed the normal connotation of "can we have a 'blah-stub' template, please", hence the "literally" qualification, and my admission this is really an aside. Let me restate my suggestion in somemore more explicitly Kosovo-controversy-avoiding terms: when we split the "X"-stubs, and "X" is universally agreed to consist of sub-entities {X_1 ... X_n} (or of some larger set, where that's a subset generally accepted subset, ignoring any arguable or contested cases), then we should always create the templates X_1-stub ... X_n-stub, upmerged to X-stub if the numbers don't merit a separate type. I'd even go so far as to maintain it's a good idea for the "precisely zero stubs" cases (though by my own logic about extending the category criteria to stub types, it might then be speedily deleted, oops), since the purpose is only partly to tag existing articles, but also as I say, to be there ready when people try some "enlightened tag guessing". Where the sub-types are open-ended, ad hoc, or unclear, I don't propose we do this. Alai 01:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, so my final question is about Category:Jordan_stub, which no one seemed to talk about. Since the stubs are greater than 60, should the category be created? Eshcorp 10:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The (correct) category name is Category:Jordan stubs which already exists and is listed at SFD. There's no reason *not* to use it since the material is not only above 60 but above 70 stubs. Valentinian (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A final small point to EshCorp and other who aren't regulars here... if jordan-stub is kept and jordan-geo-stub is not, it is standard practice to double-stub any geographical articles about Jordan with Jordan-stub and MEast-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thanks for pointing this out, though I have not known this as a "rule" or a standard requirement, I have seen it many times in many wikipedia stub articles.Eshcorp 07:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I have removed the SFD from the Category, and changed the Jordan-stub template to point to this category, the only problem is articles need to have their cache updated (or simply re-edited) to truly be part of the category. That is something I can't currently do, but it is done automatically after a while, so there's no problem there.Eshcorp 07:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Australia-hist-stub}} Category:Australian history stubs[edit]

This stub would be very useful. We have a number of other Australian topic sections, such as commerce, politics, and even State=level stubs, so why not history? :) Topics such as Battle of Pinjarra, Destitute Asylum, and more get lost in the quagmire that is the general Australian stub section, so I'd love to see this one. Cheers. --Cuomo111 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable in theory - question is, are there likely to be 60 or more stubs? I suspect it might, but I also notice that Category:Australia stubs seems fairly undersorted. Also, if we've decided in favour of country-sport-stubs ( can't recall whether the vote was yay or nay on these), then an Australia-sport-stub looks like it could be viable. Grutness...wha? 10:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The vote was short circuited by an opponent of the deletion and then resurrected. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

{{oncology-stub}} & Category:Oncology stubs[edit]

I propose this stub because nearly hundreds of articles in medicine stub category should belong to oncology. I'd do the whole process. NCurse work 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

{{immunology-stub}} & Category:Immunology stubs[edit]

Medicine stub category is full of immunology related articles. For example: Alloantigen, Alloimmunity, Autoantibody, Antiserum, Anergy, Immunodeficiency, Immunoprecipitation, Immunopathology and so on... NCurse work 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

{{soil-science-stub}} & Category:Soil science stubs[edit]

Category:Soil science would be parent to Category:Soil science stubs. Request for WikiProject Soil project input for this stub concept was initiated here, however the name offered for discussion was soil-stub. Related stub structure indicates that a discipline-oriented soil-science-stub is needed more than a resource-oriented soil-stub. For example, more candidate stubs are currently listed as geology-stubs than any other. A list of soil-science-stub candidates and article-specific rationale supporting a soil-science-stub is noted here -- Paleorthid 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields[edit]

A stub on Strawberry Fields in the page on the National Law School of India University. Have an article ready to put up there.

Not quite sure what you're asking for here. What kind of stub type are you after? The article you're referring to would get {{India-university-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

{{compu-scientist-stub}} & Category:Computer scientist stubs[edit]

This would be for those computer specialists who work in an academic environment. It would be a child of Category:Computer specialist stubs and Category:Scientist stubs. StubSense found 358 stubs in Category:Computer scientists of which over 200 are marked with {{compu-bio-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

{{international-relations-stub}}[edit]

I propose a category for international relations and diplomacy-related stubs. I propose that this stub category will apply to articles dealing with general concepts in international relations, as well as current issues, but will exclude articles that are purely historical in nature.

example: escalation 69.140.157.138 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see the need to exclude historical diplomacy a priori. I also don't like the name. The simpler {{diplomacy-stub}} would parallel a {{diplomat-stub}} that I've been meaning to propose (StubSense finds almost 300 stubs in Category:Diplomats, but had put on the back burner due to lack of time to do anything other than propose it. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Support I'd be in favor of a {{diplomacy-stub}}, which is a much better name than international-relations. As a side note, I'd also be in favor of a {{diplomat-stub}}, and if you need help populating it when/if you propose it, let me know and I'd be glad to help. Amalas =^_^= 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Support {{diplomacy-stub}} and {{diplomat-stub}} (which sounds proposed to me!) if numerically viable in each case. I'm sure there's quite a few of the latter rattling around the poli-bio-stubs (partly due to having put 'em there m'sel'). Alai 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment When I went to create these, I found the permanent cats to be a mess in this area. I've sent two cats Category:Foreign policy and Category:International politics to CFD. I'd prefer to hold off creating until those CFD's are finished, since it's hard to say how that area ends up being reorganized. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Manu-proc-stub}}[edit]

I propose a stub for manufacturing technology articles. This stub will apply to those articles dealing with a) processes and b) technology used in industrial manufacturing (i.e., it would exclude hand tools, those tools and processes typically used on construction sites, etc.). Current articles which would benefit from this stub are:

And over 50 other articles in the Industrial Processes Catagory.

Currently there is a stub for Industry articles and Manufacturing Companies, but neither of these adequately address instrial manufacturing. Since there is already a category for industrial processes with 124 pages, doesn't it make sense that there should be a stub relative to this category?

- Ame Errante 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Now that I'm thinking about it, would it make more sense to call the stub ind-proc-stub to fit with the currently existing catagory? The reason I orginally chose manufacturing processes as the name is that industrial processes also covers processes used to do repairs, etc., and seems to general, but perhaps we should worry about making manufacturing processes a subcategory of industrial processes later, when there are more articles.
- Ame Errante 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Multi-stub}}[edit]

About a month ago, on Polish Wikipedia I propose a use of stub witch could graphicaly combine fue stubs used in one article. The proposal passed and now on Polish Wikipedia we have a Tamplate call Unistub (for "Unification", or "Unity"). Example of using it on Polish Wikipedia:

As you can see, we do not have {{musician-stub}}, or{{historian-stub}}. Instead, we use:

{{Unistub|||biography|history}}

But I think that this kind of Multi-stub can be useful also on English Wikipedia. Example of using on English Wikipedia could be this article, where instead of two stubs, where could be be one like this:

{{Multi-stub|||history|battle|Africa|British}}

And text simular to:

This article is a stub related to history, Africa, Great Britain and battle. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

would apear (exact that kind of text would appear, is a topic of its own). Egon 06:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

MOST STRONGLY AND VIOLENTLY OPPOSE. This and similar attempts to produce a multi stub have been suggested many times in the past, and always rejected for the reason that they have the capability of completely destroying the ability of Wikipedia's servers to cope. If it was a good idea, we would have implemented it previously. We haven't because of its potential for causing the whole of Wikipedia to crash. I would MOST STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you instantly delete any multi-stubs you have on the Polish wikipedia. Any metatemplate used on more than a few thousand articles has the ability to slow down the servers - any editing of it can cause severe server problems. for this reason most templates which are used on more than about 2000 articles are protected from editing. Multi-stubbing would use a metatemplate that, if implemented and used on all stubs articles which require more than one stub, would see them used on hundreds of thousands of stubs.
As it happens, even if it was safe to use for technical reasons, it still wouldn't be particularly useful unless you could guarantee that every editor using it knew the correct names of all stub categories and could spell correctly. Take the examples suggested above. There would be nothing to stop one editor writing
{{Multi-stub|||history|battle|Africa|British}}
another one writing
{{Multi-stub|||history|battles|African|United Kingdom}}
and others wriring writing
{{Multi-stub|||historical|battle|Africa|UK}}
{{Multi-stub|||hist|battel|Africa|Britain}}
{{Multi-stub|||African history|battle|Great Britain}}
{{Multi-stub|||history|battles and wars|Africa|Great britian}}
{{Multi-stub|||historic|warfare|Africa|GB}}
and so on. We'd end up with ten or more possible categories rather than one neat category. We'd have categories for the US, USA, United States, United states, US of A, United states of America, America, American, United States Of America, United States of America, U.S., and U.S.A. - and that's assuming no spelling mistakes.

Grutness...wha? 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so putting in other word: You issued two problems:
  1. Technical efficiency
  2. Misspelling, or in correct naming

Ad.1 "Similar attempts to produce a multi stub have been suggested many times in the past."- I wasn't there so please allow me to say few things. I don't try to make a ready to use, for any propose, and any situation stub. I know if it would be possible, it already would be done (hmm, ok. Maybe it would be done :) ). But propose of Multi-stub is not to be the substitute for all kinds of stubs.

I see using Multi-stub in articles there for some reason a 2, or 3 normal stubs are putted. Now tell me: how much articles can it be? It could be a few honored, but "a few thousand"? I don't thinks so. And to say more: there is also solution for a "few thousand uses". On Polish Wikipedia from time to time, I will scan (whit a Bot) which combinations of categories are the most often, and for that particle combination of categories I will propose a new stub. I think it can solve the technical problem you are talking about.

Ad.2 On Polish Wikipedia we solved this problem, by adding extra Template. Propose of this extra Template was to change grammatical case into correct form, but it's (by the way) checking for correct naming of categories.

Egon 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has 300-400,000 stub articles (that's our best estimate anyway) and tens of thousands of them are double-stubbed. Many thousands are also triple-stubbed. If we implement such a policy and make edits to this template, it will be murder on the servers. I have to oppose. Valentinian (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Estimate, schmestimate! There's 473,685 (tagged) stubs, and 64,684 that are double-stubbed (or more-than-double-stubbed). So Egon is after all correct: it's far from "a few" thousand. Obviously if all of the latter used a single template, there would indeed be server load implications to edits to it, but that's why we have the Wikipedia:High-risk templates guideline, so that's not necessarily a deal-breaker. (My understanding is that this would only be a wikipedia-buster if you edited the template, and then immediately loaded a very large number of articles it was used on.) We'd want to consult fairly extensively before rolling out any such scheme, though, given that we're already on at least one developer's "idiots that should be banned" list. To put this in perspective, though, I recently noticed one wikiproject have a fairly frequently edited "to do list" that's included about 3,500 times.
Grutness's other concern about "category creation on the fly" is also valid, but is making assumptions about how a "multistub" template would be coded. I think there's ways and means of avoiding that, though I haven't yet quite worked out the details; hopefully I'll get back to the project on that in due course. (Please go easy on the all-caps violence at such time.) I'm a bit hampered in assessing the coding of pl:Szablon:Unistub by my complete lack of Polish, but I note that: it does indeed use freeform parameterisation of the category name, which there's been long-standing opposition to here, and which I'd continue to oppose, for the reasons Grutness mentions; and that it's used on slightly more than 300 articles, so's hardly been stress-tested. Alai 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I will comment one thing for now "it does indeed use freeform parameterisation of the category name". Well your right and wrong. If you use pl:Szablon:Unistub whit something like "adfa" it will create categorie "adfa", but it also create big, fat warning which saiys : "Error: Whis is invalid name for category. Please corrrect it!!!"'. Which is also a link to list of valid categories names. Although, becouse of technical isses which were point in this discussion, i will rething the code so such "empty categories" would not be created. Egon 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so I added a lite changes to pl:Szablon:Unistub. Now if you write incorrect name of category, it will only output message of incorect name, whitout assigning article to incorrect named categorie. Egon 06:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did caveat my knowledge of Polish (i.e. none) which would extend to warning messages, however big or fat... However, I still don't think that this is a suitable approach, as tag and category names very often differ, so any approach based on code-switching between the two is by no means optimal, if not out-and-out confusing. (Anyone we cares to type category names by hand can already 'silently' categorise things in a similar way, after all, but this is not a popular option.) I do think further thought and discussion are meritted, though preferably on the WSS talk page, rather than here. Alai 01:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

United States financial services company stubs[edit]

Exact name of the template and category will depend upon the result of the SFD proposal to do rename the parent template and category, but Stub Sense lists over 100 stubs in {{bank-stub}} of the first 1000 articles that are in Category:Financial services companies of the United States. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Alai 05:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Created and placed on the stub list and the to do list. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

{{US-publish-bio-stub}} / Category:United States publisher (people) stubs[edit]

Over 60 stubs available to b placed here. Not needed at this time if sorting out Category:Publisher (people) stubs were all that mattered since it will leave less than 60 stubs in that parent, but it is definitely need to sort out its other parent, the overlarge Category:United States business biography stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. US-bus-bio- is another behemoth in the making; it gets bigger after every wave of sorting of US-bio. Alai 05:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all. Her Pegship 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Created, populated, and put on the stub list. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

{{editor-stub}} & Category:Editor stubs / {{US-editor-stub}} & Category:United States editor stubs[edit]

Whilst sorting thru the publishing stubs, I've encountered quite several about editors rather than publishers that were given {{publish-stub}} either with or without {{writer-stub}} or a descendant. These sorts of stubs aren't really publishers, altho there are some publisher-editors, so {{publish-bio-stub}} isn't appropriate. Given the size of Category:Editors and its subcategories, I'm confident enough to propose Category:Editor stubs without doing a stub census and given the overlarge size of Category:United States writer stubs of proposing the US subtype. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds reasonable to me, have encountered quite of few of these myself, and StubSense finds 247. I'd imagine a {{US-editor-stub}} would also be a plan. Alai 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Created, but not populated. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Novella stubs[edit]

There are currently stub tags for full novels and for short stories, but there doesn't appear to be any for novellas. These are considered a different animal than short stories and novels, so it's not really correct to list them as such. Thoughts? 23skidoo 15:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that there will be 60 of these. Category:Novellas has all of 18 articles at present. We also have the problem of distinguishing them from other forms. While various competeive awards do so based on word count, they don't agree on what the range is. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Considered by whom? I say sort 'em either as "short stories" or as "novels", depending on their best-known form of publication. As CW says, definitions by length are far from from standardised, and if we go with the Hugo ballot defs, we'd also be needing "novelettes". Alai 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying short stories and novellas are the same thing. If that's the case, why are there categories separating them? (BTW I'd be adding at least 20-30 titles to the novellas from the Simon Templar series alone). 23skidoo 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that where a novella is published as part of a collection of stories, the distinction is far too debateable, and far too unimportant, to be worth bothering with. The (permanent) categories make all sorts of fine-grained distinctions that are pretty unrelated to primary notability, and more to the point, likelihood of expansion. Splitting by genre is a much better idea, on both grounds. Alai 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Samurai stubs[edit]

A good portion of articles in Japan-bio-stub seem to be samurai; checking the main category is consistent with this. It's one of the more oversized bio stubs. Crystallina 02:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Question: Crystallina, do you think it would be better to name the stub Japan-bio-Samurai to indicate that it is a subcategory of Japan Bios? Alternatively, would you suggest creating a new subcategory for Samurai related articles? Perhaps a stub relating to Japan history by era would be more general and therefore useful? If I remember my history correctly, the hight of the Samurai was pre-Edo era... Let me know, and if you believe that the stub as you've proposed it is most useful, I'm all for it. - Ame Errante 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Samurai are by definition Japanese, so it won't be necessary. Besides, that version of the stub name is overly long and complicated. Crystallina 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Construction[edit]

I'm looking for an appropriate category for the article "Handing" and can't find one. Shouldn't there be a construction-related article stub? Or maybe Home Improvement-related stub? Aplomado talk 07:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've given it an architecture-stub for now, which isn't really right, but close. There was talk a while ago about dividing up the architecture stubs into building types, building features, and building terms, but I don't think it ever happened - if it does then this would go into the building terms section well enough. Grutness...wha? 12:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also looking for a construction stub for the article Parade of Homes. Any progress in this? -- Renesis13 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Deserts[edit]

A dry topic perhaps... I'm creating a stub for missing article "Desert Exploration" and I don't think there's a suitable stub category. Explorer-stub seems really for individuals rather than a general topic. Dessert-stub as you would expect is for the sticky stuff not the dry stuff. It seems that with the increasing desertification of our good old planet, a desert-stub may be useful? Or if an existing stub is appropriate please let me know. May your wells run forever... Stevensims 05:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be extremely surprised if there were 60 stubs relating to deserts, especially since actual desert locations are marked with whatever country's geo-stub is appropriate. As to a stub for this particular article, it's probably better to think in terms of an {{exploration-stub}} to parallel the explorer-stub, since there are likely to be quite a few stub articles on things relating to exploration that aren't thoroughly covered elsewhere. There could well be enough for such a split. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

French and Italian sportspeople[edit]

I count 60-odd of each of these in the country-bio-stubs alone, and they each already have two subtypes-to-be. Not too urgent for the Italians, but the French are oversized. Alai 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Company by country stubs[edit]

With all of the subtypes of Category:Company stubs and the fact that we are now splitting by two axis, a holding category for the by country axis similar to the main category Category:Companies by country would seem advisable. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Creole Entertainers[edit]

{{Oceania-stadium-stub}} & Category:Oceanian stadium stubs[edit]

With the creation of Category:South American stadium stubs, when I populated it, I also did a count of the stubs that remained in Category:Stadium stubs There is no country among the stubs I just sorted that has over 60 stadium stubs. The two biggest were Brazil at 51 stubs and Australia at 42. However, if you also add in the rest of Oceania to Australia, there are 82 stubs. The stadium stubs are just under 200 and Oceania structure stubs is just under 100 (the Australian structs are separated out) so there's no urgency to this, but if there's any support, now would be a good time to attend to this. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. No reason to wait until the parent overflows to create a child. --fuzzy510 12:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Argentina-writer-stub}} & Category:Argentine writer stubs[edit]

I've just gone through nearly every single article in Category:Writer stubs trying to sort them by country. I noticed that the most common double-stub is {{writer-stub}} + {{Argentina-bio-stub}}, so it probably has enough to get its own stub. I don't know how to go and count them except by hand, but I'm sure there are more than 60. Amalas =^_^= 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Doing a "both ways" count (of the writer-stubs in some sort of Argentine people category, and the Arg-bio-stubs in some sort of writer cat, as distinct from the one-way counts I've cited below) I get 66, so support. Alai 17:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Created and will be listed on WP:STUBS once populated. Amalas =^_^= 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Listed. Yay. Amalas =^_^= 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

forensics speech and debate[edit]

  • New stub pertaining to forensics speech and debate.(64.8.81.126)
There are only 23 articles in Category:Forensics speech and debate; even if they're all stubs that's not really enough to reach threshhold. You have to go all the way to Category:Communication before you find a stub category ({{comm-stub}}). How about {{speech-stub}}? That could be a sub-cat of Category:Human communication, Category:Oral communication, and/or Category:Public speaking. Just a thought. Her Pegship 17:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
support: I started looking with National Forensic League and following all the links I could, I found over 75 (when I stopped counting) that would fit such a stub. They include organizations, annual tournements, events, strategies, how points are awarded and the like. I've pondered trying to start a project to fill these out and add more. Still to be given adequate treatment may include articles on judging, several events not mentioned, many state-wide organizations, etc. In short, I think we need something, but I'd go with just {{speech-and-debate-stub}}.--CTSWyneken 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
75 articles with what scope, exactly? If this is to cover all forms of debating and public speaking, that should be made as clear and explicit as possible: I'd never come across the "forensics" terminology before (which I'm guessing is a USism). What would the stub category name be? Alai 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the term forensic should go, as you have suggested. The scope of the stubs I counted would be something like: articles related to speech and debate societies and competitions they sponsor. These stubs are for US state level High School competitive speech and debating tournements, the events they sponsor, the culture surronding them, University level speech and debate organizations, strategies taught, criteria for judging, etc. If I had my preference, the stub would be {{Speech-and-debate-stub}} --CTSWyneken 13:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's clear enough, though the template name's more than a little awkward. What about Category:Debating and public speaking stubs, with templates (or at least redirects) {{speech-stub}} and {{debate-stub}}. Alai 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan to me, but do we want a cat with just a few stubs? Since I'm a newbie at wiki stubs, I want to learn how things usually are done at this Project. --CTSWyneken 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Stubsense is back! [3] It finds a fair number of possibilities, but they're a motley-looking bunch. It might be a plan to create just the template initially, upmerged to Category:communication stubs, and then split out fully if and when it hits 60. Alai 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'll do that. Should I wait for a few days to see if other comments come in, or should I go ahead? --CTSWyneken 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Generally, it is better to wait for at least a week after placing the proposal before you proceed and create what you proposed (assuming it had support) (so 21st June, go ahead!). For what its worth though, I also Support your proposal for this work. Best of luck. Thor Malmjursson 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Created{{Speech-and-debate-stub}} Since this is my first stub cat, would someone check my work and let me know what I need to fix? --CTSWyneken 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Something's not quite working with this one. Since this is a little off topic, would someone take a quick look, fix it and tell me on my talk page what I'm doing wrong with the thing? I've got to be away from the computer for a few days, and so can't play much. Thanks!--CTSWyneken 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You <noinclude>ed the category - SoM 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I didn't quite adjust fully the template I borrowed. Many thanks! --CTSWyneken 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sf-story-stub}} & Category:Science fiction short story stubs[edit]

Currently there is some difficulty with Category:Science fiction books stubs wherein many of the articles are actually about short stories or collections of sf. It also appears that of the Category:Story stubs and Category:Short stories, many would also fall into this category. Can anyone check the numbers on this? CatScan is down and I don't know what other tools would work. Cheers, Her Pegship 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Hrm, spot the stray plural in that stub type (hence the redlink); should be renamed, once the whole books vs. novels thing is sorted out. Doing a lightning(ish) off-line impersonation of CatScan, there seems to be an overlap of 85 between Category:Science fiction books stubs and Category:Short stories and subcats. I've no idea of those are stories as such, anthologies, or combinations thereof. Not exactly an urgent-looking split, either way. Alai 01:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And another 49 such, currently tagged with sf-stub rather than (or as well as, I don't doubt) sf-book-stub. Alai 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal. (I was just about to suggest it myself.) In the mean time I've been re-tagging articles as I come across them with {{sf-stub}} and {{story-stub}} - should I stop doing this and just wait until the new tag becomes available? --Paul A 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I can create it later today, I think. Do whatever saves you the most time! Cheers, Her Pegship 19:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

{{anthology-stub}} & Category:Anthologies stubs[edit]

The parent category is currently sparsely populated, but I can guarantee you it would be filled quickly if there were a stub type, for reasons related to the sf-story-stub issue. A lot of those sf-book-stubs are anthologies, as well as many articles currently lurking under lit-stub. Her Pegship 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • do we need to specify anthology-book-stub, so as not to get "Best of" albums added to the category? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd at first stab think not, but I might be biased, as I'd call those "compilations" rather than "anthologies". All the same, I vote for "give it a whirl without, and provide negative reinforcement as necessary". Alai 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I tend to think of albums with tracks by many artists compilations, and those with tracks by just one artist anthologies. But perhaps that's just me. Grutness...wha? 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Revise proposal to {{anthology-book-stub}} to Category:Anthology book stubs. Any takers? Her Pegship 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll buy that. support. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Done & ready to fill. Her Pegship 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Comics-writer-stub}} & {{Comics-artist-stub}}[edit]

{{Comics-creator-stub}} and {{US-comics-creator-stub}} (the latter created without consultation with WP:COMICS) contain 1092 stubs between them. The only reason to go with "creator" in the first place was due to doubts over sufficient stub numbers. While there will probably be a need to retain comics-creator-stub as a catch-all for letterers and editors, perhaps writer/arists, and as a supercategory to contain the two, it should be split, and US-ccs deleted (if there's going to be a later split by country - and it needs to be made clear whether it's by nationality of birth or by nationality of work - it should be subcats of cws and cas. I doubt the rump cat will have enough stubs) - SoM 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • sounds reasonable. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Hiding Talk 12:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the new types. Strongly oppose deletion (or depopulation) of per-country types (I believe others have been proposed already, or would certainly be viable if not): I can see no reason for treating these occupations differently from every single other occupation, which get split by country when they're oversized, and otherwise just end up being double-stubbed, however sporadically, with often-oversized country-bio- types. Alai 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Creator-stub is non-standard already and doesn't fall into the hierarchy. - SoM 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The parent cat was already oversized (1000+) by the time of the US split, so if the wikiproject had some other scheme in mind, and were only concerned about finding 60 stubs for each, they were distinctly slow in speaking up. Does anyone really doubt that there will be the population for a US-<misc comics jobs>-stub type? Alai 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Will there be enough? Possibly. Will the parent cat be big enough to support being split (i.e., will it avoid falling beneath 60 itself). Probably not. Based on a glance, I expect that over 90% of the 1100 will fall into cws or cas. If you're going to split by country, SPLIT THEM!
    • And I didn't say WP:CMC had plans. I say you should have clued us in on your plans so we could raise objections or make suggestions at the time. Too much to ask? - SoM 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If my arithmetic is correct, and leaving aside whether your estimate is, 10% of 1100 is comfortably over 60. Alai 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • 10% of 1100 (implicitly "less than". And the exact number was 1092) between two stubs, averaging 55 if you took it literally. I'll reply to the rest later. - SoM 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
          • If you could do so without (further) refactoring and re-signing my comments, I'd be much obliged. Between what two stub types? You said "the parent cat" (emph. mine (it not being in bold or all-caps, after all)). I thought you were referring to the undifferentiated "comics creators" who were neither "artists", or "writers", or more to the point, who were both, who'd remain in the parent category. Even in the event that this ends up being much smaller, it'd make sense to keep it to contain whatever number of such stubs there are, as well as the appropriate sub-types. At any rate, what we're disagreeing about is the deletion of a stub type, for which is not the correct venue, rather than the actual proposals, on which we're entirely in accord. Alai 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
      • (This is just a little too reminscent of alleged great ideas like splitting actors by medium, leading to several oversized per-media cats, and literally hundreds of articles being double-stubbed. Admittedly it's unlikely to be quite so bad, though by the time it gets to splitting the letterers, pencils and inkers, it could well be.) What do you mean, "if"? Splitting by country's already started, as you know; are you now saying they're insufficiently split by country? The two schemes can sensibly co-exist: much better than someone be double-stubbed as a US-comics-creator- and a comics-writer-, than as the latter, and a US-bio- or a US-writer, which is what motivated the original US split. You said that a single "creator" type was used only because of concerns about numbers: that seems a lot like a clain of intent to create separate types to me. And no, being informed isn't too much to ask (though some of the comments we get from wikiprojectarians does make me wonder why we'd ever bother), had I or anyone else thought of it at the time, but it's a bit much to take belated umbrage at the lack of same; the designated place for such proposals is here, and here it was indeed duly proposed. Alai 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Another profession with hundreds of notable individuals, likeley thousands worldwide (don't forget about manga...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

{{US-women's-hoops-bio-stub}} and Category:United States women's basketball biography stubs[edit]

Wow! What a mouthful... Anyway, after splitting hoopsbio into US-hoops-bio and everyone else, we found 7 pages of the former and just over 200 of the latter. So I was thinking of way to split up the former, and the only intelligent way I came up with was by gender. I counted, but there weren't quite 60 - so I had to find some unmarked stubs, and created a couple as well. Now there's either 61 or 62, assuming I got all of them, which is highly unlikely. Note: before an objection is filed, "women's" is used in the many cats covering lady BBallers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • BTW, other suggestions are welcome! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just hit me that if you take out the women, the rest is a priori men. Um... do we then have to rename the leftover cat? I am confused... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, this stub could be applied to male coaches and officials who work with women's basketball, so for non-players it would be possible for this stub to be applied in addition to US-hopps-bio-stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • why not {{US-women-hoops-bio-stub}} knock out the "'s"? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, this is a context where "sexing" stubs makes sense. (Though not of course, sexing them up.) Alai 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • After giving this some thought, I'm not convinced that this is the best split. I doubt if the stubs split 50-50 by gender so we're still going to be left with an overlarge category if we did it this way. How about following the example of the american football stubs and split out by position as {{US-hoops-center-stub}}, {{US-hoops-forward-stub}}, {{US-hoops-guard-stub}} and {{US-hoops-coach-stub}}? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The thought of doing so much work makes me cringe. If we split it by gender, there would be 60-61 women and ~1200 men - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think splitting the women out first and then splitting the men by position definately makes sense. Female basketball players play in a completely difference league, so other people will usually know something about them to expand the stubs.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 13:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree, though double-stubbing the women by position on the same basis surely also makes sense. Alai 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • These should be American, not United States so as to match the convention for nonstub categories. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

{{SierraLeone-stub}}[edit]

I think this would be a good stub. There are many Sierra Leone stubs under {{Africa-stub}} and many more that are unmarked. There might even be the possibility for a geo or bio stub once it is all sorted. (unsigned post by Thomas.macmillan)

  • how many? are there 60? if so support, if not wait until there are more. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This may sound dumb, but how do i support? Should I list them or create a template? I am new to this, forgive me...--Thomas.macmillan 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think BL means, if there's 60, then she will support the type, rather than imperatively telling you to support yourself. :) A list might be good, though, if this is touch-and-go on size. BTW, had you in mind locations, non-locations, or both? Africa-stub is actually very small currently, I'd be very surprised if there's 60 non-geos; AfricaW-geo-stub is larger, but hardly massive. So it's by no means urgent, but it's always annoying to find there's no type for a country, so I support at least a {{SierraLeone-geo-stub}}, upmerged to the West Africa cat if undersized, as a separate category if there's 60. Alai 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't - not yet, anyway! At 27 geo-stubs there are less Sierra Leonean geo-stubs than there are for any other West African country! Grutness...wha? 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I just did a little checking for possible Sierra Leone stubs and, at a very basic level (and I believe there are many others that can be found and marked), I found well over 50 stubs. I can publish my list if need be. About half of these are geo-stubs. Sierra Leone certainly needs a huge expansion of articles though...the runner up in the 2002 presidential election, Ernest Bai Koroma, does not even have a stub yet! (unsigned post by Thomas.macmillan)
        • If there are that many, I'd support an overall SierraLeone-stub, though the geo-stubs should be double-stubbed with AfricaW-geo-stub - eventually there'll probably be enough for a separate geo-stub too, but not yet. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of the African material is not tagged very well, 50+ sounds likely so Support (double-stubbed when relevant). Valentinian (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. If there are 50 stubs about this, they should be appropriately tagged. Green caterpillar 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

More artists-by-country[edit]

These I'm especially confident there's more of, given the whole "artist by type/medium" stub sub-hierarchy, too. Alai 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

More businesspeople-by-country[edit]

Counts on a similar basis to those below. Alai 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm finding these are coming up a little short, partly due to some stub-tag overlap, and partly due to some false positives. So rather than categories, I'm creating most of these as double-categorised templates. If people find some undercatted stragglers, they may pass threshold, though. Alai 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

More writers-by-country[edit]

The main writer-stub cat is still very oversized; here's some possible splits:

Counts are based on the writer-stub category, and country-based cats of some sort: I assume more lurk elsewhere. Alai 17:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • would dividing writers (and the other proposals that have been flooding this page) by continent help at all, especially for South America? Grutness...wha? 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If you think this is a flood, have you checked the size of the oversized stub types backlog lately? We're likely to need many hundreds of new types before we're done (and at current rate of progress, or lack thereof, we'll never actually be anywhere near done). I'd have no objection to per-continent types where appropriate, but I don't have counts on that basis readily to hand, and doing so without hacking off the reasonably-sized countries first is likely to lead to categories that are multiple-page-listings from birth, which is highly suboptimal from a "double-handling" PoV. (I'm listing one-way counts over 30 on the basis that the other way 'round will often have just as many, without even considering stubs that aren't explicitly double-stubbed or otherwise categorised.) Alai 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't see this before I proposed {{Argentina-writer-stub}} (see above). If nothing else, there should be a South America writer stub of some sort. Brazil has its own already and I'm sure Mexico and Argentina have enough for their own as well. Amalas =^_^= 14:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Created {{Mexico-writer-stub}} and will list on WP:STUBS once populated. I will possible also add a {{SouthAm-writer-stub}} as a parent, but we'll see. Amalas =^_^= 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's listed, but just put in alphabetically among the others. Should I propose separately a {{SouthAm-writer-stub}} that would function similarly to {{Euro-writer-stub}}? There are a lot of South American countries that don't have enough for their own, but could easily fall under that. Also, Argentina-writer-stub and Brazil-writer-stub would be sub-stubs of that as well. Amalas =^_^= 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

5 more Africa-related stubs[edit]

  1. {{Ghana-bio-stub}} at least 60 under {{Ghana-stub}}, will get more as I sort the Africa-related stubs
  2. {{Morocco-bio-stub}} at least 65 under {{Morocco-stub}}, will get more as I sort the Africa-related stubs
  3. {{CotedIvoire-stub}} or similar see discussion below for naming. For list of stubs see User:Carabinieri/Africa#Ivory_Coast
  4. {{Guinea-stub}} For list of stubs see User:Carabinieri/Africa#Guinea
  5. {{Togo-stub}} For list of stubs see User:Carabinieri/Africa#Togo--CarabinieriTTaallkk 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Balears-geo-stub}} proposal[edit]

I would like to propose a Balearic Islands geo stub, it is one of the few autonomous communities of Spain that has no geo stub. See [[Category:Spain geography stubs]]. I believe in this way there will be more consistency with these categories. They are as many balearic geo stubs as any of the other communities. --Francisco Valverde 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If created, should be at {{Balearics-geo-stub}}, given that's clearly (the shorter version of) their common name in English. The template should probably be created for the sake of consistency, "upmerged" to the parent, but as there are <120 articles between the four remaining autonomous communities, viability of a split looks rather marginal (not to say, completely unnecessary for the same reason). Oppose a separate category until there's clearly demonstrated to be 60 actual articles. Alai 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
{{Balears}} is used in the general Balearic stubs, though...--Francisco Valverde 15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
And shouldn't be, for the same reasons. That this type is unproposed and unlisted (as well as also being undersized) might have something to do with it. I'm even more strongly opposed to a separate -geo-stub category: last thing we need is multiple undersized cats for the same region. Alai 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the table seems to have overturned in little time. You have convinced me for waiting to have 60 articles for a balerics-geo-stub. Perhaps we could just rename the Balears stub for Balearics??? But I do believe that the Balearic Islands should keep its stub template. --Francisco Valverde 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any point in deleting it entirely either; it could well grow. Worst case it should be upmerged, rather than deleted entirely. Alai 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
ive no objection to a {{Balearics-stub}} template but it should feed into the Category:Spain stubs for now. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Legendary Creature Stub Templates Proposal[edit]

The lengendary creature stub needs a template any suggestions? All I got to say about this one is ANYTHING BUT A DRAGON! I Probably should have discussed this when discussing the stub, but one I forgot and two my computer had been out of line. 7:37 AM - June 12, 2006 (UTC5) Tripodero

Unicorn.gif

Like this perhaps? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • mmm... not the clearest picture at small size. If you can decide on a creature, though, I could whip up an image for you easily enough (so long as it's a heraldic beast), similar to the dragon I made for myth-stub. Take your pick - Gryphon? Unicorn? Phoenix? I might try to make a little phoenix and add it here - watch this space... Grutness...wha? 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Phoenixicon.jpg
    • here it is! Grutness...wha? 02:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • PS: If no-one objects over the next couple of days, I'll add this to the template. Grutness...wha? 09:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not too shabby. 8:49 AM (UTC5) - June 13, 2006 Tripodero
I like it. Valentinian (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
youre right its better than the unicorn which just looks like a horse when its that small. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, I already created the {{legendary-creature-stub}} template, as I saw that the category had been created but not the template; but it certainly could use an image! And I like the phoenix. Her Pegship 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for being no fun in the find-an-image contest, but isn't what it really needs, some articles? :) Alai 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you build it, they will come...<g> Her Pegship 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like enough of a consensus, the phoenix it is! Grutness...wha? 05:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further splits of the US writers[edit]

Counts on the same basis; stub parent is the third 13-pager.

I suspect those with < 60 candidates will have many more elsewhere. Alai

  • Support all per nom. Her Pegship 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lots of potential for double stubbing here, similar to TV/film/stage/voice actors. I assume this would go by primary medium.
    • Yes, that's definitely the danger and downside. Primary medium would be the best plan, yes. Alai 06:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • All of these should be created as American, not United States so as to match the parent non-stub categories. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Creating the following:

Switching to American over the proposed United States due to the names of the non-stub parents as per my previous objection. 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Obviously I counter-object to this creation, given the utter lack of any manifest consensus in favour, and the induced inconsistency with the existing stub parent. I suggest they're switched to the name there was at least token agreement in favour of. (Will hardly bust the servers, as current population are minimal.) Alai 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Split of Category:software stubs[edit]

Also enormously oversized; here's some counts of possible splits, based on permanent cat membership alone:

Alai 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that Category:Free software stubs is listed at WPP/D. There, I'm one of two or three people that argued that it's far more useful to split software bywhat it does than whether it's free or not - a view I still hold. Splitting by platform makes sense, but splitting out freeware's not a useful split IMO - splitting out graphics software, word processing software etc is far more sensible, and arguably has already started via things like cvg-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Makes sense in theory (and would also apply to the SourceForge suggestion), though the existing scheme isn't exactly going great guns, "judging by results". This one might be destined to stay enormous until someone gets their hands dirty and counts this down the hard way (or, the perm-catting gets better). Alai 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Non-profit organization stubs[edit]

Org-stubs are enormously oversized; there's 56 of them that are also tagged in the permanent non-profit category, so I'm fairly sure this would pass 60 on a wider trawl. Alai 21:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

New Stub Catagory (reggae)[edit]

My bad! I didn't see this page before adding this one:Category:Reggae Stubs. Should I list it here, under discoveries, request it be deleted and propose? --CTSWyneken 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It'll have to be deleted to be renamed to Category:Reggae stubs anyway, so if you have no objection, I'll go ahead and delete it now. Also note that stub categories also require a corresponding stub template. It was only used on a reggae album, for which there's an existing type, but if there's at least 60 reggae artists, groups, sub-genres, songs, etc (which there surely will be), it seems fairly logical to me. Alai 17:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do. I do not have much investment in it anyway, since I found it on a random article, cat and stub adding expedition. It was odd to me that we did not have a subcat off of Music Genre stubs. I'll do some searching and come back with a proper proposal. --CTSWyneken 18:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; done. I can't think of any logical reason for not having something similar to this; sometimes we create the categories "bottom up" (reggae-band-stub, reggae-bio-stub, etc) before anyone thinks about a top-level category, but there's certainly no reason that has to be the case Alai 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

{{US-academic-leader-stub}} / Category:American academic leader stubs[edit]

{{US-academic-bio-stub}} is getting close to being overlarge and a fair number of these are for university and college presidents and other officials. I'm not at all sure about the name. The closest non-stub category is Category:American university presidents but as that category states, the guy in charge sometimes has another title such as chancellor, and I'd like this category to include others in school administrations that can't be pegged down to a single department. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom auto racing biography stubs[edit]

Getting around to creating and sorting to my earlier Euro- suggestion, there turns out to be about three times as many as my earlier count, and about 90 just in the UK. For the time being I'm tagging them with a UK- templating feeding into the European category. Alai 16:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Mesoamerica-stub}} / Category:Mesoamerica stubs[edit]

Proposing this stub for articles relating to Mesoamerican topics and civilizations. This stub is associated with a WikiProject (WikiProject Mesoamerica), and there are easily 30-40 stub-candidates (for eg, more than half of the 60+ stubs currently in category:Pre-columbian stubs are Mesoamerica-related.--cjllw | TALK 12:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now created this stub & associated category, and begun to populate it (reached 75 articles so far). Will add to WSS/ST.--cjllw | TALK 15:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Two more musician types[edit]

On the basis of double-membership of the respective parent cats. Alai 03:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. --Bruce1ee 06:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. That many? OK then. Green caterpillar 11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Created, but need someone to populate them. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Beetles[edit]

It looks like a large number of insect stubs not already in one of the lower categories are beetles, so I'm going to propose {{beetle-stub}} SP-KP 16:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds plausible, if non-urgent, to me. Alai 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The insects consist of thousands of species and inevitably the number of stubs are going to grow as more enthusiasts add stubs. Unfortunately knowledge about each species/genus/aspect builds up slowly only and this is where stubs come into their role. Each order will always have a dynamic population of stubs. The Beetles are one of the largest groups and it should be no problem to list the desired sixty, in this case.AshLin 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely, there are nearly as many beetle species decribed as all the other insects put together, somewhere between 200k and 400K according to sources close at hand.. Maccheek 13:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ice hockey biography split[edit]

I don't have counts, as stubsense and catscan are still down, and my offline hack is still grinding its way through the category hierarchy (don't even ask), but I'm going to take a wild guess that at least these are more-than-viable, given that the parent is at an ominous 9 listing pages:

I don't have any bright ideas for further splits: I'll leave a note at the appropriate wikiproject. Alai 15:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Unnecessary, and there are at least six countries that have produced major numbers of hockey players, so splitting into Canada, US and "the rest" would be North Americo-centric.BoojiBoy 15:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not "unnecessary": there are 9 listings page, for heavensakes. Nor is it in the least "North Americo-centric": I'm suggesting these, along with the already-proposed Category:European ice hockey biography stubs as the most obvious on size grounds, not and not necessarily as the only ones. And obviously I'm not suggesting a "rest of the world" type. But if there's another axis of split that makes more sense, I'm all ears. Alai 16:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. It is standard procedure to start creating sub categories for the countries we are certain will break the 60-stub barrier. Valentinian (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support. The fact that there are other countries that have produced hockey players that don't have the required 60 stubs to create a category is a terrible reason to not create a category for any country at all. If the smaller ones break the 60-stub barrier, they'll get theirs too. --fuzzy510 22:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. And CatScan (praise be to its author and its keepers) indicates that the Swedes are also over threshold, (so support Category:Swedish ice hockey biography stub too,) and the Czechs are one short; if someone wants to finagle them a 60th, I'll not mind. --CComMack 12:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OpposedSupported as per CComMack. As CComMack has said, CatScan puts Sweden's Ice Hockey stars over the threshold, so I am happy to revert my mote to a full support. Thor Malmjursson 09:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Footnote: there's also a bucketload of Slovaks: 31 that are explicitly double-stubbed, alone. As I've no idea if there's any more, I've just tagged them with a "double-upmerged" template for the time being. Alai 03:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created stubs for the US and Canadian ice hockers, and I'm about to put them on the stub list, but I'm leaving their population to others via the To Do list. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mind if I move the US category to the proposed name? Alai 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This fortnight's geo-stubs[edit]

There are only a couple that have reached threshold this time, but both pose some problems. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire[edit]

First up is Côte d'Ivoire. I'd favour {{CotedIvoire-geo-stub}} (no circumflex or apostrophe), but I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Definitely needs a {{IvoryCoast-geo-stub}} template as either the main or the redirect. Since there are no technical nor keyboard problems that would prevent a {{Coted'Ivoire-geo-stub}} from being used, I see no need to omit the apostrophe from the Frenchified template name. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with apostrophe as primary name per my Rand McNally Atlas, with the English name as redirect - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • See my comments below. No objection to including the apostrophe - though I'd prefer not to start including accents and circumflexes, so "Cote" not "Côte". Grutness...wha? 06:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems illogical to go for the French name and not spell it correctly with the ô, but pragmatically it makes typing easier! --Runcorn 11:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Isle of Man[edit]

Second, we have the Isle of Man. Currently IoM geo-stubs are marked with UK-crown-geo-stub, along with those from the Channel Islands. There are two options here:

  1. create {{IsleofMan-geo-stub}} and leave the C.I. geo-stubs with {{UK-crown-geo-stub}}
  2. create {{IsleofMan-geo-stub}} and {{ChannelIslands-geo-stub}} and delete the then obsolete {{UK-crown-geo-stub}}

Personally I'd favour the latter, especially since there are now close to 50 Channel Island geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be {{IvoryCoast-geo-stub}} from what is written in a non-geo proposal below? The second option is the better one for the Isle of Man - Nomadic1 06:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong, apparently. Since I started doing the geo-stub tallies a year ago WP's policy on the country's name seems to have reversed. To be honest, I prefer the French name, but it does make the stub template a problem. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
For "policy", read "entirely ad hoc practice". Support as nom, but create a couple of likely-looking redirects so we don't get yelled at. (Sorry, to try to reduce the amount of yelling at us.) Alai 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Isle of Man, the second proposal looks like a good idea. The only problem with the French name is that it will not be spelled in correct French. At least create a redirect from {{IvoryCoast-geo-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of a redirect there too. As for the French name, diacriticals are pain enough in computing without having them in templates too, but I'll make a redirect from {{Coted'Ivoire-geo-stub}} too. We have precedents for not using diacriticals in geo-stub templates before, I'm sure, with some of the French regional stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine. It's not the templates' fault that French is impossible to spell. :) Well, English, French and Danish are all languages famed for being impossible to spell. Still not sure which language is the worst in this respect. (And if anyone were in doubt, yes: both French and Danish are also impossible to pronounce). Valentinian (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • IsleofMan-geo-stub, ChannelIslands-geo-stub, and CotedIvoire-geo-stub created, with redirects at Coted'Ivoire-geo-stub and IvoryCoast-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

{{japan-stadium-stub}} / Category:Japan stadium stubs[edit]

I've got at least 60 of them sitting in Category:Asian stadium stubs, which is slightly larger after Category:Stadium stubs got sorted. Would obviously be a child of Asian stadiums. --fuzzy510 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

{{publish-bio-stub}} / Category:Publisher (people) stubs
{{publish-corp-stub}} / Category:Publisher stubs
[edit]

These would be subtypes of the existing Category:Publishing stubs as well as of Category:Business biography stubs and Category:Company stubs respectively. The stub category names were chosen to match those of their non-stub parents Category:Publishers (people) and Category:Publishers. Both stub types would have over 60 stubs each and would serve to split up Category:Publishing stubs which is getting close to being overlarge. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've noticed any number of the former in bio-types. Alai 02:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Created along with {{publish-company-stub}} since y'all did a mass remane from -corp- to -company- while I was way from stub sorting. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

{{vegetable-oil-stub}}, Category:Vegetable oil stubs[edit]

There are over 60 of these to be written, listed in Talk:List of vegetable oils. Some that are already stubs include Peanut oil, Sesame oil (listed as ingredient-stub), Walnut oil. Others are redirects (Evening primrose oil, for example). ingredient-stub doesn't do it, because, by a wide margain, not all vegetable oils are used as food ingredients. I'd like to write stubs for most of those that are missing, but I'd like to have a better stub category before I dive in. Waitak 06:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The normal criteria is 60 existing articles, but if you personally have clear-and-present intent to write that sort of number of stubs, I'd be inclined to wink at it. (I'd suggest initially creating a template only, and then a category after the articles exist, but I'm not sure where it'd point, for the reason you mention.) Alai 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't promise to write all of them, but I certainly intend to clear the bulk of them. If you add in the existing ones that are candidates for this stub category, I'm pretty sure it'll be in the ballpark. Waitak 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposed - Firstly, not everything in Talk:List of vegetable oils is a vegetable oil. EPA for example is actually an Essential Oil, since Evening Primrose is not a vegetable. Secondly, if the articles don't exist, the stub should not be sitting round until you have the time to fill it up! Nice try, no snowball from my half! Thor Malmjursson 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Costa Rican protected area stubs[edit]

No, I wouldn't have thought so either, but seemingly there's 68 of these, on double-stub counts alone; oversized parent. Alai 03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

{{SouthAm-stadium-stub}} / Category:South American stadium stubs[edit]

Forget about 60 - I can find 100 here without breaking a sweat. Just look at the "E"s - at least half of the venues that start with "Estadio" go in here. Potential parents down the line for Brazil and Argentina stadium stubs, but this is a start. --fuzzy510 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Alai 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Created this a couple of days early, in part so as to determine the need for any country specific stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Footy-bio-stubs[edit]

Hello folks! :) I am not involved in WikiProject:Stub sorting but I think someone should count articles under {{Euro-footy-bio-stub}}, {{Asia-footy-bio-stub}}, {{Africa-footy-bio-stub}} and {{SouthAm-footy-bio-stub}}. Many Australians are also under {{Oceania-footy-bio-stub}}. I think a few new "country-footy-bio-stubs" could be created. Do you know some people who have a lot of free time and like to count? :) -- Darwinek 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 518 stubs in Africa, so some subdivision would be useful. There are 116 stubs in Oceania, so if we took out Australia (probably most of them) the remainder would be a bit thin.--Runcorn 11:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not too bad - at a quick glance there are over 30 New Zealanders in there, so with Pacific Island players there would probably be about 40 left in the Oceania category. If necessary I'm sure I could either find or make a few more to get it up to the required size. Grutness...wha? 12:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that many Australians are under "Asia-footy-bio-stub" since they were agreed to play in Asian zone again. - Darwinek 14:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Czech-footy-bio-stub}}[edit]

I proudly present Czech-footy-bio-stub with 102 articles to be added here. -- Darwinek 09:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong support; Euro-footy-bio-stub urgently needs splitting up. --Runcorn 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Support from me, too. Grutness...wha? 12:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

{{US-record-label-stub}}, {{UK-record-label-stub}}[edit]

Record label stubs are oversized and these seem like the most natural splits. Crystallina 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm assuming you've got 60 stubs for each (StubSense is currently giving errors so I can't check). --Bruce1ee 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

{{NHS-stub}} and Category:NHS stubs[edit]

This template was the subject of an earlier discussion - what a pity it was not publicised at the time that it was under consideration. It is very important for Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service. and we never knew that it was up for discussion. There are very many entries (130+); the project needs to keep track of them so we can arrange a tidy-up and expansion.

As a result of the disucssion it was renamed Category:United Kingdom medical organisation stubs. However this is not really appropriate - NHS-stubs include such issues as legislation, reports, strategies, and other issues which could not be considered as 'medical organisations'.

Moreover, bear in mind that the NHS is the 3rd (or maybe 5th) largest organisation in the world. The WikiProject is trying to make some sense of it on Wikipedia. This means that a lot of stubs have been thrown up in a short time as we work out how to fill in the gaps. We are intending to start intensive work on the stubs soon; so the stubs have a functional purpose.

I apologise that appropriate procedures were not undertaken; and accept full responsibility for my ignorance at the time.I regret that it was not possible for myself or other members of the WikiProject on the NHS to participate in the earlier discussion; but please retain this very helpful tool, which I believe fits all the criteria for Wikipedia stubs.----Smerus 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why these can't just be left in {{UK-med-org-stub}}. Even if this would mean that they would mixed with a few non-NHS stubs, I don't see the harm.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) I have a couple of minor concerns, though one of them is minor and the other one should (hopefully) cause no trouble. The first is that scoping the stub the way you propose isn't really in line with the way stubs normally are split up. Putting med-org stubs, law-stubs and other types of stub relating to the operation of the National Health Service is a little difficult, shall we say, though I dop understand the desire for it and I think on this one instance it's not too bad a move. There are certainly enough stubs (130 or so) and - on the face of it - if they were removed from the new UK medical organisation category that one would be virtually empty. The second concern is one that is more important from our point of view in stub sorting than from yours as a WikiProject, and that's the name of the category. NHS is all very well, but - as with all WP categories we try not to use abbreviations. We could probably get away with NHS-stub for the template (though UK-NHS-stub would possbly be better), but I'd personally far prefer Category:National Health Service stubs for the category, bringing it in line with both the main category and the topic article. The other option would be to leave the category as is - there are very few non-NHS stubs, so they wouldn't be in your way and they'd be easier for other editors to find. Sorry if I jumped up and down a bit about this one - hope no offence was taken - but all this could have been avoided if you'd read the instructions when setting up the WikiProject (have a look at the lines immediately above your edit here!) Grutness...wha? 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As a user of the NHS-stub, I hadn't noticed that there was a promble with categories until now. While NHS is the name the organisation is known as to many people in the UK, using the full name National Health Service in the category title may be better for a worldwide audience. --kylet 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've come late to this discussion, but do feel it would be useful to have a dedicated category for these stubs so that we can work on them to expand them up to full articles. I'm fine with the full name National Health Service, although NHS is a/the frequently used acronym for the organisation by millions of people. — Rod talk 09:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
But you still haven't made clear to me why this stub type is even necessary. What would be the harm in keeping stubs related to the NHS in the {{UK-med-org-stub}}? Like I said, I understand that this would mean mixing them with a few non-NHS stubs, but what would be the harm?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Because firstly the NHS is a healthcare organisation, not a medical organisation ("medical" in the UK at least refers just to doctors, not to nurses, scientists, and other healthcare providers) and secondly, even if you broaden the definition to healthcare from "medical", you still don't capture NHS organisations that don't directly provide healthcare, such as strategic health authorities, special health authorities, and the numerous administrative national organisations such as the Health & Social Care Information Centre, National Workforce Projects, the Workforce Review Team, the National Programme for Information Technology, etc. etc. Thirdly, purely from the point of view of running the wikiproject, this category will be the only means we have of identifying NHS stubs. If they're mixed in with non NHS healthcare stubs, you'll be making our already very difficult task pretty much impossible. We're trying to write an encyclopaedia here, not squabble over petty policies. Not allowing an NHS stub category will be detrimental to the wikiproject and therefore detrimental to Wikipedia, whereas allowing it causes no difficulty whatsoever. I fail to see why you're so opposed to it - the impression you're giving is that you want to hamper our progress in improving Wikipedia just for the sake of it. Waggers 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Use:Waggers has contacted me asking whether he/she can go ahead with the new cat (Category:National Health Service stubs). I've no problems with it - if anyone has any objections, make them pronto! :) Grutness...wha? 05:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Hindu-text-stub}} and {{Hindu-temple-stub}}[edit]

Trying to shrink the Hinduism stub cat. It's huge. These are the most common stubs under the cat.--Dangerous-Boy 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, three things: first, it's not "huge": 650 articles isn't even "oversized"; secondly, template names should end in "-stub", and not "-stubs"; and lastly, just how many are there of each? Simply "most common" tells us very little in absolute terms. Alai 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

{{amateur-radio-stub}} / Category:Amateur radio stubs[edit]

Stub articles for this proposal would be sourced from ...

This is 23 stubs at present, plus dozens of articles in the amateur radio category and subcategories that should be marked as stubs but currently are not.--Kharker 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

23 is not even close to the 60 needed (see the instructions at the top of the page). if you can find 60, let us know and well be more interested! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess "dozens" was a little vague :-) Here's a more accurate accounting:
For at least 105 stub candidates.--Kharker 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like enough for a new stub. --Runcorn 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

{{music-mag-stub}} / Category:Music magazine stubs[edit]

Stub articles for this proposal would be sourced from ...

... totalling 91 stubs. --Bruce1ee 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Editted the proposed category name slightly to follow the naming conventions for stub categories. I would be much more in favor of a country-based rather than a topic based split of Category:Magazine stubs, in the same manner as Category:Newspaper stubs is split. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Caerwine, I take your point, but what I'm really trying to do is depreciate {{music-stub}}. With a country split, music magazine stubs would need to be double-stubbed with {{country-mag-stub}} and {{music-stub}}, whereas with {{music-mag-stub}} they need only be single-stubbed, and would depreciate both {{music-stub}} and {{mag-stub}}. Perhaps a complete new stub category is required, say {{music-publication-stub}} (under "Music miscellaneous") that would include music magazines and books. --Bruce1ee 06:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

{{music-publication-stub}} / Category:Music publication stubs[edit]

This is an alternate proposal to {{music-mag-stub}} above for which concern was expressed, and will be placed under "Music miscellaneous". It will now include all music magazine and book stubs, totalling over 100. --Bruce1ee 05:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Not sure now this addresses that concern, however. Personally I think I'd tend to favour the original (despite same). Alai 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer this proposal; not all publications are magazines! --Runcorn 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Even more country templates[edit]

also: {{DRCongo-stub}}, the first sixty I found (there are probably a lot more) are listed here.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
oops, apparently that already exists but doesn't have a cat and was never proposed. should I go to the discoveries page, or is it enough if i just proposed it here
{{Mali-stub}} looks like a good idea as well. It has two viable children (-geos and -bios) and a non-exhausting search came up with around 50 stubs. Valentinian (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And support to all of them (slaps head). Valentinian (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Btw, any good ideas about what we should name the category for DR Congo? Valentinian (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
we have Category:Democratic Republic of Congo geography stubs so id go for Category:Democratic Republic of Congo stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You missed a "the". It's Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo geography stubs :) Grutness...wha? 08:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It was a bit easier when it was just Congo-Kinshasa. Luckily, Côte d'Ivoire is still below threshold. Valentinian (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh... unfortunately, not for geo-stubs. it's going to be in the next batch of proposals (thankfully, I think WP style uses "Ivory Coast"). As for Congo, it was even easier when it was "Zaire". Grutness...wha? 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, points to you. {{IvoryCoast-geo-stub}} sounds nice. Valentinian (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
err....well, it does, but sadly since I last looked the policy's apparently been reversed - hence the proposal for {{CotedIvoire-geo-stub}} above. :/ Grutness...wha? 10:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, we should have a stub. --Runcorn 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

More country templates[edit]

It looks like a lot of material has grown (or been tagged better.) A few more country-level templates seem to have reached threshold.

  • {{Benin-stub}} (no -geo exists): c. 100 excl. the geos. [4]
  • {{Burundi-stub}} (no -geo exists): c. 70-80 excl. the geos. [5]
  • {{BurkinaFaso-stub}} (no -geo exists): c. 130 excl. the geos. [6] How can a country this size have more than 60 political parties ????? I thought Danish politics was bad with around 8 parties. We could actually split them off as well !
  • {{Djibouti-stub}} ? (no -geo exists): just above 60 incl 19 geos. [7]
  • {{Liberia-stub}}: c. 120 excl. the geos. [8] A -bio is probably viable as well (54 politicians)
  • {{Liechtenstein-stub}} (no -geo exists): 61 incl. 15 geos. [9]
  • {{Luxembourg-stub}} is worth considering as well. It is below threshold (and stub sense is useless here since this part of the database is pure rubbish, but it has two viable children (-geos and -bios) so it might be worth a thought anyway. It is the same case with Mali, btw. I'll try to do a count of this one by hand.
  • {{Madagascar-stub}} (no -geo exists): c. 77 incl 36 geos. [10]
  • {{Namibia-stub}} (no -geo exists): c. 100 excl. the geos. [11]
  • {{SanMarino-stub}} (no -geo exists): 63 ? incl. a few geos. [12] (I've populated it a bit more, it is not shown here due to the database lag)
  • {{Senegal-stub}} (no -geo exists): c. 120 excl. the geos. [13]
  • {{Tonga-stub}} (no -geo exists): c. 60 incl. the geos. [14]

I've not scanned all obvious candidates since parts of the database is completely trashed. In short: some countries need to be counted by hand! The categories for Burma (Myanmar), Libya, Luxembourg, Mauritania, Tunisia, and Yemen look like examples of chaos theory. Valentinian (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • First a couple of corrections: there do indeed exist {{BurkinaFaso-geo-stub}} and {{Namibia-geo-stub}}. As to the support, yes, I support all of these, but especially the ones which already have geo-stub categories. I'm busy on the latest tally and several of the remainder (Benin, Burundi, Djibouti, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, San Marino, Senegal, and Tonga) might yet have viable geo-stub categories too, although some of them clearly won't. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
My buff. I used copy-paste on the wrong line of text. I didn't notice any -geos reaching threshold but much material is probably not categorised properly. Valentinian (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse my creating the Africa-related stubs a few days early.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

{{research-policy-category}}[edit]

This is a proposal for a new category for articles about the policy and politics affecting learned research. As far as I know, there's only one article on this at present (see the Haldane principle stub) but this work which currently consumes about 2 per cent of GDP in the OECD countries and the category may help stimulate contributions. Alternatives might use the words science and technology or R&D, but this would exclude the social sciences, humanities and arts. The word research is also closer to the German idea of Wissenschaft, the French recherch or the Dutch onderzoek.

if it's just for a main category, then you can simply make it. In fact, I've gone ahead and done it for you ("here's one we prepared earlier") Just add Category: Research policy to the bottom of the articles. BTW - this proposal's nothing to do with this page - this page is for proposals of stub categories and templates, and this doesn't seem to be connected with them at all. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support in principle but needs to be defined better.--Runcorn 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sports-award-stub}} / Category:Sports award stubs[edit]

Don't have an exact count, but between the thousands of articles in Category:Sports stubs and its children and some that can be scraped up in Category:Award stubs, I have no doubt that I can find 60. --fuzzy510 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

{{moth-stub}}[edit]

WikiProject Lepidoptera has been instituted to guide Wiki-authors creating articles on Butterflies and Moths. The existing {{butterfly-stub}} is appropriate for butterflies and no changes are proposed. Moths, however, have no stub of their own. Considering the large amount of moth articles which are stubs (the required 30 and more are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Moth Stubs), there is a definite need for a moth stub. As of today, the generic {{insect-stub}} (which itself is heavily overtaxed) is being used.AshLin 05:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support; sounds very reasonable. Moths and butterflies are often studied by different groups of people so it would make sense to attract the appropriate experts to flesh out articles. Maccheek 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Valentinian (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the support. Since we have a backlog of work and images, I'll assume that no one has serious objections and go ahead and make the stub. Any contrary views are welcome and may be logged in the project talk page. Thanks again, and regards. AshLin 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; a moth stub has to exist. In addition do we have stubs for atleast the common orders of insects. hemipterans, coleoptera, diptera, hymenoptera. Insect stubs is overtaxed. --Viren 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's slightly oversized, but bear in mind that the goal is stub-sorting, not exact categorisation. But if someone wants to sort the orders that are over the size threshold (i.e., 60 articles, not 30: one stub type pleading per wikiproject, not a menu thereof), then fair enough. However, please don't create stub types before the discussion period is concluded. Alai 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Your point regarding need to wait till discussion period is done is noted. Just for information, we have listed sixty plus stubs in the project page mentioned above. This was from the first few moth families. If we had completed trawling the entire moth families there probably would have been well over a hundred stubs listed. WikiProject Lepidoptera now has its requirement of stubs and templates and unlikely to need anymore. Do visit our project page and give us your valuable comments please. AshLin 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • From the context I suspected that was the case; nor was I by any means insisting on a complete list, just an indication the likely pop. was indeed at least 60. Alai 02:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

{{pest-control-stub}}[edit]

Wikipedia seems to be very poor in this area, which covers specific pests - including diseases and weeds, pesticides, other plant protection methods etc. There are several hundred pesticides, dozens of bio-control agents, many thousands of pests, diseases and weeds, most of which have no entries yet, those that do need expanding. I can see several subcategories. This whole area needs real work. (Ideally I would prefer a plant protection stub but there is no plant protection article and I'm not sure I am up to writing one).

And here is a list of 50 Septoria Leaf spots Strobilurin Triazole Rust (fungus) Pyrenophora teres Blumeria graminis Uncinula necator Fusarium Downy mildew Sooty mold Karnal bunt Ustilago Quinoline Pyrethroid Organophosphate Rotenone Aldrin Aldicarb Bacillus thuringiensis European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Pesticides Safety Directorate Molluscicide Nematicide Fumigation Scale insects Botryotinia Botrytis cinerea Black Sigatoka Thrips Cutworm Beet armyworm Common furniture beetle Death watch beetle Weevil Black vine weevil Wheat weevil Degree day Beneficial insects Pesticide side effects Indian meal moth Sulfuryl fluoride Insect trap Clubroot Fusarium ear blight Mycotoxin Erwinia Pesticide resistance Syngenta Blackleg I think many crop articles (e.g. Barley) ought to have a pest control section as well but I’m not sure that’s the correct use of a stub

Maccheek 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{US-mall-stub}} / Category:United States mall stubs[edit]

{{US-struct-stub}} needs trimming down and this stub, scoped to include shopping center as well as malls, has about 78 articles. Crystallina 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Green caterpillar 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

{{defunct-US-stadium-stub}} / Category:Defunct United States stadium stubs[edit]

It's a definite starting point to thin out the beast that is Category:United States stadium stubs. If anyone needs me to, I'll make a list - I don't think Stubsense will help on this one, since woefully small numbers of defunct stadiums are actually tagged as such, but having both sorted through US structure stubs and tried to expand some of the stadium stubs, I have to believe there's at least 60 in there. --fuzzy510 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this isn't attracting the disapprobrium my proposals to split the stadia did, but I have some doubts on this myself. How would they be "tagged" as defunct? There's no existing template for that purpose, right? Secondly, this seems to be an axis the perm cat is not split on, as opposed to the three that it is. This would introduce yet a fourth, and fail to "follow the permies". Alai 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"Defunct" might not be the right word or term for it. Perhaps "closed" is better? The point is to siphon out the stubs for stadiums that aren't currently housing anything, whether they are shut down or razed. If you ask me, this is one of the only ways to do it. Classifying by what sports the stadia hold is a disaster waiting to happen, since we'll having dozens of stubs correctly double-tagged, since there are stadiums that host hockey and basketball, American football and football, et cetera. The categories would probably need to be split again fairly soon simply because the children will have also become overpopulated. As far as the split axis is concerned, that's an oversight on my part that I completely missed. I'd therefore like to see a tag for closed stadia in general, and if the numbers allowed for it (which I think they would), a child tag for closed U.S. stadia. --fuzzy510 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd prefer "closed" --Runcorn 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

{{wargame-stub}}[edit]

Child of Category:game stubs; Parent of Category:Warhammer 40,000 stubs. A lot of Category:Game stubs and Category:Board game stubs really ought to be in this category (it's the latter that concerns me). A quick google search suggests about 190 potentials; I'll check more thoroughly if wikisign comes back. Percy Snoodle 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems good to me. Alai 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that was uncontroversial. Done. Percy Snoodle 11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I note there's now a lot of double-stubbing with BG-; that's less than ideal. At such time as re-splitting into "board wargames" and "miniatures wargames" is viable, I'd suggest doing so, to avoid this. Alai 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

{{roma-stub}}[edit]

Create {{roma-stub}} in for almost all the items in Category:Roma. -- TheMightyQuill 08:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose there are fewer than 50 articles in the Cat exclusive of subcat Holocaust, which is somehow included in Roma. (Is that right?) Not sure how many of them are stubs, but it's too few anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, if you include the sub-categories Category:Roma culture, Category:Roma ethnic groups, Category:Romani language, Category:Roma music, and Category:Roma people (which don't all need their own stubs), there are just shy of 70 articles. I'm not sure how many are stubs, but I think if you check, the great majority of them are. -- TheMightyQuill 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. By my count, there are about 55 articles tagged as stubs in the non-Holocaust categories, and many of them are double- or triple-tagged, which inflates that number. If that's completely accurate, which I believe it is, I don't think it's really necessary. --fuzzy510 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to get an accurate count? I tried various google searches, but I can't figure out how. -- TheMightyQuill 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not always a completely accurate result, but Stub Sense is a good starting place. --fuzzy510 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Not accurate all:
  1. Aven Amentza
  2. Budeşti
  3. Civil Union "Roma"
  4. Dazdie
  5. Decade of Roma Inclusion
  6. Deponia
  7. Devla
  8. European Roma Rights Centre
  9. Euroroma
  10. Flag of the Roma people
  11. International Romani Union
  12. International day of the Roma
  13. Paul Polansky
  14. Roma Democratic Social Party
  15. Rudolice nad Bílinou
  16. United Roma Party of Kosovo
  17. World Roma Festival
  18. World Romani Congress
  19. Csárdás
  20. Museum of Romani Culture
  21. Đurđevdan
  22. Gypsy Lore Society
  23. Dom people
  24. Gitanos
  25. Gurbeti
  26. Kalderash
  27. Lovari
  28. Machvaya
  29. Romanichal
  30. Romnichal
  31. Rusurja
  32. Sinti
  33. Ursari
  34. Angloromani language
  35. Caló (Spanish Romani)
  36. Carpathian Romani language
  37. Domari language
  38. North Central Romani
  39. Romani alphabet
  40. Romano-Serbian language
  41. Tarish language
  42. Vlax Romani language
  43. Cocek
  44. Gypsy jazz
  45. Jazz manouche
  46. Taraful Haiducilor
  47. Augustine Bearce
  48. Azis
  49. Diego El Cigala
  50. Ian Hancock
  51. Vlastimil Horváth
  52. Raby Howell
  53. Ibolya Oláh
  54. Lívia Járóka
  55. János Bihari
  56. Jimmy Marks
  57. Panna Cinka
  58. Romica Puceanu
  59. Džej Ramadanovski
  60. Roma in Mitrovica Camps
  61. Viktória Mohácsi
  62. Roma minority in Romania
  63. Roma in Spain
  64. Ion Voicu
I can't believe I just wasted that much time going through the category manually. Anyway, even if you discount the couple possible mergers, it's more than 60. So, can I have the stub? -- TheMightyQuill 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sometimes that's what it takes. Seeing as how I've been proven wrong, change vote to support. --fuzzy510 21:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I made it, but I'm not sure where on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types it should go. Any ideas? -- TheMightyQuill 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Under {{ethno-stub}}? Conscious 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)