Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/January 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of January 2007. Please move completed January discussions to this page as they occur, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After January, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

Contents

[edit] Plants

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

The result of the debate was create fruit-tree-stub and palm-stub.

  • {{fruitree-stub}} including some {{fruit-stub}} and {{tree-stub}}
  • {{palm-stub}} including some {{monocot-stub}} and {{tree-stub}} - Now, the {{palm-stub}} is about Palm OS stubs.

I think you're missing a t! {{fruit-tree-stub}} might be better, to indicate hierarchy. I'm not sure it's the best split, though: plant-stubbers seem to have preferred biological taxons (except for "tree-stub" itself, admittedly), and this is purely a "common or garden" term. I think we should probably SFD the "palm OS stubs"; they look small, unproposed, the template is, as you say, highly ambiguous, and I think we deleted or upmerged something like this already. A palms-the-plants-stub would be OK if there's 60 now. Alai 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, {{fruit-tree-stub}}, if it has 60 potential members, would be good as not only a child of {{tree-stub}} but also of {{horticulture-stub}}. We have two overlapping fields (no pun intended) with plants, horticulture and botany, and the two have different considerations of what's important. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that's more along the lines of "another example of the same problem". Alai 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The trees are Officially Oversized again, and the palms are up to 58 at my count, so definitely support those. The Fagales, Dipterocarpaceae are in the mid-20s, and worth keeping an eye on, if not starting upmerged templates for immediately. I'll take the palm-stub template to SFD. Alai 09:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Italian artist stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I thought I might have proposed this before, but evidently not, as there's no link to it. 62 possibilities. Alai 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

support ! Goldenrowley 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{NorthQueensland-stub}} and Category:North Queensland stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

{{Townsville-stub}} There are about 60 articles which could fit into this new category of stubs (Identified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Townsville) which are very relevant to members of Wikiproject Townsville and will be helpful in recruiting new members to our WikiProject. I'd appreciate any input about this. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to change my request from {{Townsville-stub}} to {{North Queensland-stub}}
I make this request so that there is consistency in the stub categories as {{FarNorthQueensland-geo-stub}} is already an established category maintained by WikiProject: Stub sorting. Additionally North Queensland will be easier to define as North Queensland has undisputed boarders whereas 'Townsville' is the name of both a Local Government Authority and the greater urban centre.
I have created a list of Townsville related articles which could be within the scope of the proposed Stub group here, there will obviously be many more which relate to the more broad category of North Queensland, however Townsville is a good place to start as the largest urban centre in North Queensland.
I propose the parent stub would be {{Queensland-geo-stub}} / Category:Queensland geography stubs Thanks again, WikiTownsvillian 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a well-defined area, and there's a pretty good sized list of stub articles that would go into the stub category, and since there is already a WikiProject to support the stub, I think that it looks like a good idea. BlankVerse 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW: The permanent category (and other proposed parent) is Category:North Queensland. BlankVerse 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent plan to me. Note that of the two template names mooted above, {{NorthQueensland-geo-stub}} is the conventional form, rather than {{North Queensland-geo-stub}}. Alai 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too... One question/point though - the original Townsville-stub looks like it was intended for more than just geographical features, and the original request here too was for a NorthQueensland-stub. I've certainly no qualms about a NorthQueensland-geo-stub, but will it serve all the purposes you want, WikiTownsvillian? Grutness...wha? 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grutness, thanks for the good point, I think your right and that {{NorthQueensland-stub}} would be more appropriate for what I had in mind. WikiTownsvillian 08:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see why that'd be handy for the wikiproject, covering as it would their whole scope (and more besides). On the other hand, most of them are geography stubs, and it's the Category:Queensland geography stubs that are likely to be needing split (and indeed already have been, later). So if we create the non-geo type, it'll mean a lot of double-stubbing, and then if we create the geos later, it'll leave a general type looking very thin... Alai 08:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

The result of the debate was create as Anseriform-stub (consistent with other stub templates). A split from Category:Bird stubs. AWB found 71 such stubs in the Bird stub category. Eli Falk 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Speediable, as this was discussed before, but should probably be {{Anseriformes-stub}}/Category:Anseriformes stubs, or if you really want to singularise, {{Anseriform-stub}}/Category:Anseriform stubs. Alai 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Phytopathology

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

The result of the debate was create as plant-disease-stub. I propose a phytopathology stub catergory be created. Nearly every phytopathology article is a stub. Those that detail the actual pathogen, such as Pucciniaceae are labbeled with the kingdom they belong to, but every member of that family is a plant pathogen. Some potential phytopathology articles concerning plant parasitic nematodes have no real appropraite stub to go into. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

  • I'm a bit dubious. There's no Category:phytopathology permcat, and Category:plant diseases only contains 40 articles. And I have a felling that the mycologists will say that fungal plant diseases are better organised by taxon, rather than lifestyle choices... Alai 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That catergory is missing all the plant virus articals, which are currently called Virus stubs. Phytopathogens are also highly specialised, most members of an entire taxonomic family will be plant pathogens. It will also provide a more appropriate stub for any oomycete articles, as though fungal like in nature they are not related to fungi at all. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
    • OK, I'm coming around... If this helps with the contents of Category:disease stubs (large and seemingly not all that well-categorised), all to the good. Alai 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree than fungi that cause plant diseases should be arranged by taxon, however, plant diseases are the interaction of a pathogen and a host and it's that interaction that defines phytopathology. Also I feel that taxon information that is currently included in plant disease articles (e.g Wheat leaf rust) should be appear in an article for that fungus (Puccinia triticinia) rather than in the disease article. A one-to-one association does not exist between diseases and pathogens. Many diseases are caused by multiple different pathogens and many pathogens cause multiple different diseases on various host plants. Somanypeople 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I take your point. I shall leave it to the discretion of topic-knowledgeable editors to determine whether a given article is more-about-the-organism, or more-about-the-disease. If there's 60 of the latter, and we use the terminology of the existing category, it seems like a plan. Alai 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] plainlink

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

The result of the debate was no consensus

I think the edit link should be a plain link: replace [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it] with {{plainlink|url={{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it}} (expanding it ) —Random8322007-01-27 23:31 UTC (01/27 18:31 EST)

  • I disagree, for the reasons I mentioned when this was discussed recently: in short, that'd be something of an "easter egg" link. Alai 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you link the previous discussion? I don't think the external link box is appropriate for links that stay within wikipedia. —Random8322007-01-28 19:04 UTC (01/28 14:04 EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Underground band stub

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

The result of the debate was propose again when sufficient articles have survived.. I have noticed in New Page patrolling that many underground band articles are deleted although they are perfectly legitimite articles that provide the reason the band is important, and alos probvides the sources to back up the information. Why not have this as a stub? I don't have a large amount of articles to provide as evidence because most articles are deleted before they can be viewed by the general public. I would like to stress also that I do not mean that every kid with a garage band could add this stub to their page. I mean reasonable underground pages.--St.daniel 12:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really our role here, as stub-sorters, to try to influence notability guidelines. If there are bands that are "notable but underground", and you can persuade the music wikiprojects -- and AfD -- that these should be kept, then a stub type might be appropriate once there's enough of them. It's not a good idea, however, to justify a topic as being "worth a stub", but not a fuller article: the main point of of stubs tags is to indicate short articles on larger topics, not topics that it's hard to write more than a couple of sentences on in toto. Alai 07:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I';; subtract this in about a hour and I invite anyone else to do the same if I forget.--St.daniel 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] {{notstub}}

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

The result of the debate was no consensus

We have, for about two years, had a previously little-used template called "notstub". It's invisible (comment only) and designed to be added to small, complete articles which are of standard stub length. It may be worth formally adopting this template, given recent comments at Wikipedia talk:Stub about articles being re-stubbed by bots even though they are as complete as they will ever get. It would be pretty easy to tinker with the settings of bots so that they avoid any articles marked with notstub, and it would reduce the large number of permanent stubs on nobles fromn the dark ages, obscure Sumerian deities, and the like that will never amount to more than a paragraph. And they don't even have to have a category :) Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I like it. A place for everything, and everything in its place (see obsessive-compulsive disorder...). Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I can certainly see what motivates this: I've come across several of these "this two-sentence article is perfect in every way, and should neither be merged, nor is it ever likely to be expanded" arguments -- including en masse about literally hundreds of stub-sized articles at the Moon wikiproject. I have mixed feelings; with stub-sorter hat on, it beats having them clutter up categories forever, or having the tags repeatedly removed, added, removed... But more generally, is it really a sensible means of organising information to have large numbers of teeny articles on inherently minor or obscure topics? Alai 09:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Depends. There are some people for whom we'll likely never have more than short articles about, but it makes sense to have them so as to provide an aid to categorization if they'd end up in the same categories as other people for whom larger articles are writable. If they were all short articles, listification makes sense, but not if only some are and some aren;t. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Plastics and glass

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

The result of the debate was do not create

{{plastic-stub}} including production, industry, development of new stuff, disposal, recycling, contamination, aso, to be included where you feel necessary, probably in part under the materials / miscellaneous section, if no other option is defined.

also {{glass-stub}} production, industry ,under the same "Materials"- adding thermical process to produce curved security glass like the wind breakers in cars,laminated glass for airplanes or security purpose, the old techniques to produce by humans blowing (relatively smaller) glass for windows before WW2 or even bottles and flasks, and even colored glass for {{vitrail-stub}} or the wonderful and famous {{Tiffany-colored-glass-stub}} to be defined by others ,if not already shown on Wiki under another stub i didn t see yet.

and a stub about {{optics-stub}} ,including sub-stubs(?) about history, development, R&D, microscopes, human glasses or photographic lenses including their history ... feel free to define better the idea if considered interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.197.132 (talk • contribs)

as a newbie trying to locate some stubs,sometimes not visible immediately... if the actual {{optic-stub}} already exists, therefore, a few sub stubs could be implemented.

i propose (please add options...)

{{sunglasses-stub}} including a link to the history and producers like Zeiss, Zeiss-Iéna,Bausch&Lomb,the techniques of production of colored glass,and even referring to already existing sites like the one about Wayfarer lenses if authorized/admitted here...

{{correction-lenses-stub}} , materials like plastics used or security glass,metals or composite used for structure, adding somewhere another {{optical-chirurgical-techniques-stub}} about the procedure, risks and techniques for the correction of human vision defects , by laser f.i. , if not developped here yet.

{{photographic-lenses-stub}}. history , terminology, evolution of glass and production used to apochromatize or produce 0.95 Canon lenses more efficient than human perception of light in the 70s...

{{photographic material storage stub}} trying to define the future of visual document conservation when albuminoid or argentic materials are disappearing from the market but new materials can't really secure a long term preservation, even when stored on digital support who can be wiped off in some circumstances. this point can be contradictory, as if the digitalization helps to accumulate easily, a vision of the digitally stored requires a electronic gobetween and at some level the selection can be filtered or impeached not by human criteria but technical problems to access the invisible. as electronic voting can be modified or filtered.

I think you are confusing stub types and categories. I find it extremely unlikely that any of the four stub types you just proposed would hold the 60 encyclopedia article stubs that that at a minimum, we want for a new stub type, or if they did most of the articles would get either merged or deleted as being unencyclopedic in nature. Perhaps a photography specific wiki would want an article for each camera lens ever made by any company, but such articles would be too specific to warrant a Wikipedia article. At most, an article covering each type of lens, and/or each company's line of lens would be appropriate. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Caer's is right you need 60 to qualify as large enough group for a stub. Supposing there are 60 glasses articles, The item that makes sense to me is to split glasses-stub as a sub-cat of both "optics" and "fashion"... Goldenrowley 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{mag-erotica-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was no consensus

This proposal is to assist in the sorting of the mag-stub category. At present there are five stub categories under mag-stub and while using AWB, I noticed that there is a substantial number of articles that would benefit from this level. While I did not maintain a current count, I have gone through approximately 200 articles. I feel that I can easily place nearly 50-75 articles into this proposed category at this time(I still have 309 more articles that need to be looked at for SS/Categorization). Rob110178 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • At the risk of being indelicate, I think the "main" permcat is Category:pornographic magazines, and there's an existing {{porn-stub}} (as in the (in)famous line by one <jkl> '"This pornography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." That's the worst pickup line ever.'). Admittedly there's also an Category:erotica magazines, but that's much less well-populated, and has a cfd notice on it (admittedly an orphaned one). So on balance, I think I'd favour {{porn-mag-stub}} / Category:pornographic magazine stubs, though with redirects to taste. (Hopefully nothing too depraved.) Alai 21:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ofc ourse the problem there is it opens up the debate about the similarities and differences between pornography and erotica. Both, however, are value judgments which overlap to a large extent, and following the permcat, wherever that is situated, is probably the best way to go. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sure there's an "irregular nouns" and "Jimmy Wales" joke in there someplace. Alai 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You folks have been doing this for way too loooong, haven't you? ;-) If a distinction between labeling something as erotica vs. porn is important, what about creating two stub templates that both feed into the same category? It would be purely a cosmetic "fix", but it might be more palatable to see the seemingly less offensive term used in the article space, yet keep the stubs together in a single category for easier management. Just a thought. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Which, stub-sorting, carping about our Glorious Leader, or porn? :) I'd also be quite happy with a distinct template (indeed, it seems to be my eponymous thing to suggest), rather than the above-mentioned redirect. We still have to pick a name for the category though. Alai 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Wow, I did not think there would be such a hullabaloo about this category. I picked the term erotica as a neutral term to cover both porn and erotica. I think that by using erotica we can encompass (appropriately) articles to provide a repository for people with interests in this area. On a lighter note, what would be the (ahem) icon for this stub? Rob110178 16:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Call this a hullabaloo? Just wait around at WP:SFD the next time someone nominates an unrecognised state type, or a "people by ethnicity" one. Anyhoo, I'd misread the notice on Category:erotica magazines; it's not an orphaned CFD, it was an orphaned "CFD on a different category", which has since been deleted. However, neither of these is a subcat of the other, so it's not absolutely clear which is the more inclusive, strictly speaking. If we go with the more 'neutral' (or euphemistic) term, then the template should more naturally be {{erotica-mag-stub}}, both for hierarchy reasons, and for ordinary word order. In either case, I'd prefer some sort of scoping and naming consistency between the two types. Alai 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{NZ-fieldhockey-bio-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create.

This is only a minor proposal, since neither of the parent stubcats is ovepopulated, but: I've just finished going through the NZ-bio-stubs sorting items into the new NZ-sport-bio-stub category, and I thought I'd keep track of what was in there, thinking there should be at least 60 rugby union stubs. there weren't - there were 49. BUT there were nearly 80 (field) hockey bios. A NZ-fieldhockey-bio-tub, though not essential, might well be useful. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Japan food stubs, Category:Japan crime stubs, Category:Japan clothing stubs, Category:Japan literature stubs

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

The result of the debate was create Japan-lit-stub tpl & cat; upmerged templates for others. After cleaning through the Category:Japan stubs, these three categories stuck out as obvious subcategories which would help reduce the number of articles there. Sorry, I don't have an exact count. The crime stub was particularly surprising, but, it seems that every branch of every yakuza organization (defunct, or otherwise) has an article. Neier 12:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I forgot about literature stubs. There are many "waka poetry" articles, along with many other books. Neier 13:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now when you say, "don't have an exact count", do you mean "but vaguely near 60", or more along the lines of "search me"? Alai 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support if they reach threshold, but please revise the last one as Category:Japanese literature stubs. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • For the sake of avoiding gratuitous instances of "stub grammar", each of them would be more naturally placed at "Japanese ...", come to that. Alai 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to withdraw the clothing request for now. Here are rough counts from Category:Japan stubs
  • Regards. Neier 22:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Canadian election stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

A nice simple split as of days of yore. The elections are oversized, 107 are double-stubbed with election-stub and with Canada-poli-stub. Sweet! Alai 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Support, good way to take care of the double stubbing. Goldenrowley 05:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{manuscript-stub}} / Category:Manuscript stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

The parent and main article for this category would be "Manuscripts" which is suprisingly full of stub length articles under the main and sub categories. I was having some trouble classifying "Illumuniated manuscripts" they are temporarily housed at "art history" but really they are both works of art and works of literature. Goldenrowley 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] {{Germany-rail-stub}} / Category:German rail stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

There's now over 100 of them (list is here in {{euro-rail-stub}} with probably tons more coming soon (the field is very broad). Would greatly help the Germany effort I'm planning on WP:GER and WP:TWP. doco (☏) 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit surprised we haven't had this before; tripleplussupport. Alai 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Poland-painter-stub}} / Category:Polish painter stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I found 80 and {{painter-stub}} is quite full. Lesnail 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. This may have been mooted in an earlier proposal, though if so I can't lay my hands on it. Alai 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: artists and painters categories overlap so much I get confused when I have to chose which, has this ever been addressed? We just had an Italian artist stub this week, so it means potentially we'll need to double-stub people both artists and painters where it applies? Also, I don't know if this is international trend, but in California we only call the "house painters" the "painters". Plus I know of very few artists that are just painters, nothing else. Examples: Picasso paints, draws, and sculpts. Degas draws and paints. I guess I'd suggest here it is better to do {{Poland-artist-stub}}, and someday tp reexamine this whole "painter" category Goldenrowley 03:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There are tons of artists, both past and present, who specialize in paints of various kinds, and I must defend the Left Coast by saying that we do indeed refer to these artists as "painters". I think Goldenrowley needs to get out more. <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey I get out ... anyway its okay we can keep it as it's used all the time. Goldenrowley 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Iowa-road-stub}} / Category:Iowa road stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

see Category:United_States_road_stubs as 20 articles (with the addition of many more to come) are stubs here - will be associated with WP:IASH. • master_sonLets talk 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • defer until 30 existing articles. Monni 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No reason not to create the template immediately, would prefer to defer the separate category, as Monni suggests. I believe there's a long-standing but mostly unimplemented proposal to have upmerged templates for every state, feeding into regional categories. (In this case, Category:Midwest United States road stubs.) Alai 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not how WP:USRD operates. And no, there was never a proposal to feed it into regional categories. In fact, feeding stubs into regional categories would clutter up those categories. Therefore, I will vote
  • Create. The parent Category:United States road stubs is already cluttered up with stubs that do not have their own category. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • support upmerging, just have to decide where to upmerge... Monni 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a such proposal, and the only implementation was the {{South-US-road-stub}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And I vote Create because it is a question of when the stub will meet the threshold. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support template. According to Category:Iowa State Highways, 44 articles currently exist on Iowa state highways. Most (by my estimation at least 35) are stubs, either tagged or untagged, placing the number of articles over the 30 article threshold. Oppose category until 30 Iowa road-related articles are tagged as stubs, to confirm my hunch above. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So why don't we go through the category, then tag all the stub-sized articles? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. My hunch was off - fortunately for WP:IASH, it was on the low end. The actual number of Iowa road stubs is 40, all of which are now tagged as such. Support both cat and stub template. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{malta-bio-stub}} / Category:Maltese people stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Over 50 just by looking into {{malta-stub}} using StubSense. Monni 13:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Support per nom. Not quite 60 but the -bio material is often less than perfectly tagged. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Category:Illawarra region geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

NSW geos are oversized again, and this looks like the most feasible split. It should just creep over 60, though it's made somewhat harder to count by the lack of a Category:Wingecarribee Shire (which would be one of the upmerged constituents). Alai 07:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Asian mathematician stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Don't see any additional countries that are viable yet (aside from lots of undersorted Usonians), but Asia would be viable, with upmerged templates for India, Japan, China and Iran in particular. Alai 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Southern Region, Brazil geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Brazil geos are still oversized, and pending a newer datatbase dump, I can only manage a region, Southern Region, Brazil, to be populated from upmerged templates from each of its three consistuent states. I count exactly 60 stubs. Alai 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice some inconsistency between " state" and "(state)" in the various articles and permcats... Alai 07:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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


[edit] Australian State (Goverment) School Stub

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

The result of the debate was do not create

I think there should be a Australia... (read heading) as to sort State schools from inderpendant schools. There are numourous public school stubs only using australian school stub, and this would help in sorting them... :-) Adammw 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts; elsewhere we've split the schools by sub-national entity, and likewise with other Australian types. Why not split by state? In any case, Mind The Caps. Alai 16:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alai - a by-state split makes more sense, since editors are probably far more likely to know about their local schools than schools nationwide by type. Grutness...wha? 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Australia-comedian-stub}} / Category:Australian comedian stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Not sure if this was proposed before, but I found 53 in StubSense and I'm pretty sure there are more which are uncategorized. Crystallina 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think it was, but at any rate, support. Alai 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] HongKong-sport-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was create category.

The numbers of stub is over 70, enough to create category. Matthew_hk tc 09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice job, support. Careful with the supercats though, please. Alai 09:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support from me too, ironically, since I was the one who deleted this as a re-creation earlier. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Literary magazine stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

To go with {{lit-mag-stub}}, currently upmerged but now with 111 candidates. Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Excellent. Slightly higher tone than the previous proposal, if I may say so. :) Since I proposed this in the first instance (... before withdrawing and deleting it...) =, I've taken the liberty of "speedily restoring" it. Alai 06:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Gaelic Athletic Association club stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Removing the redirect from {{gaelic-games-club-stub}} and creating the above cat (Gnevin 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

mmm. I've no objection to the creation of the template and upmerging it into the main GAA stub category, but I'm not sure there are enough stubs yet for a separate category. The main GAA stub cat only has about 140 articles - are 60 of them for clubs? Grutness...wha? 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Their is currently 55 with {{gaelic-games-club-stub}} on the page and possibly a few club more in the main stub not tagged correcly (Gnevin 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
Is this a yes or no? (Gnevin 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
Seems close enough and generally OK to me. There was also the idea of the football/hurling split, but these would probably be sensibly split out separately, given the likelihood of overlap. Alai 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Already have the football {{gaelic-football-bio-stub}} and hurling {{hurling-bio-stub}} will split off the clubs later today (Gnevin 12:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
I recall about the bios (vaguely), but I meant more general {{gaelic-football-stub}} and {{hurling-stub}} types. Alai 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the trouble with a football and hurling split is that in general it wouldn't be a split it would just be an over lap (Gnevin 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Bomb stub Category:Bomb Related Stubs

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

The result of the debate was BJAODNize. This would be for say most of the exploding animals And I even made a template for it hope you like the joke. {{Bomb stub}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djf2014 (talk • contribs)

Very funny (really!) but we already have {{explosive-stub}}. I think we should lob this one over to BJAODN. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, we've already sent one stub concerning explosive animals to BJAODN a little over a year ago. However, even if this stub followed the naming guidelines, its unclear whether a BLU-3 or a Ishtar is intended to be the subject. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)\

O.K but may I put my joke on that template. Djf2014 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I see you went with the "improves in the re-telling" theory. (I must stress the 'theory' part.) As the coding of that template was pretty dodgy anyway, perhaps it was worth the mention here anyway. Alai 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Botswana-bio-stub}} and {{Botswana-politician-stub}} with the required categories.

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

The result of the debate was create templates, upmerge. There are numerous articles which the first stub could be used for, be they writers, singers or celebrities in Botswana and this would be more specific than the current "Botswana-related-stub". Many other countries in Africa already have this stub template and Botswana could be added to the list. The latter also has numerous articles which it can be used in. I believe it can also go with the Botswanan political parties which have stubs attached to them. I would like for all countries in Africa to soon all have the same stubs, so other countries like Mozambique who don't have some of these stubs should have some by the year is out. Articles which do not currently need these stubs may not have been created yet, so when they are, the required stubs will be ready for use. Thank you for your consideration. Mangwanani 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • How many is "numerous", in each case? Alai 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A note on the categories for Botswana. As has been noted on various talk pages, the word "Botswanan" does not exist. The categories should be named "Botswana people stubs" and "Botswana politician stubs" I nominated the Botswanan people cat to be moved way back in October but it has failed to happen.--Thomas.macmillan 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Admittedly I did write in my reasoning Botswanan but for the names of the stubs I have written BOTSWANA-BIO-STUB, BOTSWANA-POLITICIAN-STUB. Mangwanani 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose categories... I don't think there is enough existing stubs. Monni 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • support templates, but categories should wait till we reach the normal threshold (= 60 relevant articles). Valentinian T / C 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A hand count revealed 37 bio stubs under Botswana-stub. Support templates for now, bio cat soon.--Thomas.macmillan 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{soft-drink-stub}} and Category:Soft drink stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

As a member/participant in WikiProjects Food & Drink (incl. Coffee & Tea task force), Mixed Drinks, Soft Drinks, Beer, and Wine (yeah, I got sucked in), I noticed that all of these WikiProjects have separate stub categories, except for Soft Drinks. It would be very nice to sort the soft drinks into their own stub subcategory. That would make it much easier to see what inside of the general drink category is miscategorized and also help the Soft Drink project members see which drink stubs are the ones they should focus on improving. I will be happy to create the template and category using a slightly tweaked template that Alai originally created ({{mixed-drink-stub}}), and I can also create the category, too. Thanks! --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - According to AWB, there are 178 stubs there. Eli Falk 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds OK, but not under that template name (I've moved it to {{soft-drink-stub}}), or with that coding (I've redone it). Alai 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Tentative support. Sounds good, but isn't "soft drink" one of these things that has different meanings in different cultures? Grutness...wha? 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes and no, while it may not be the preferred name for cold non-alcoholic beverages everywhere, I don't see it causing confusion for anyone. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - It's also the name of the related WikiProject, which is why I chose that name for the stub tag and category. It seems logical to keep them all together with the same name. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, given both those comments I can be a little less tentative in my support :) Grutness...wha? 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that it's the terminology that the article and the permcat use. Alai 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Euro-mathematician-stub}} into national categories

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

The result of the debate was create UK-mathematician-stub. There are too many European Mathematician stubs at that level. French and German sublevels have been created but are not fully populated. Realistically, the creation of English, Scottish, Dutch, Italian, Russian, Polish, and Greek sub's would go far in the clean-up, but I propose the NPOV of creation of all European nationalities to get this fully cleaned up and not leave a few Luxembourgers, Icelanders, and San Marinans lying at a higher level. Carlossuarez46 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Notice that per WP:STUB, it's desirable only to create stub categories when there's 60 or more existing stub articles to populate them. If you want to create stub templates, upmerged to the main category, then I'd see no problem. Alai 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There are already templates for UK, Russia and Poland. Only UK has more than 60 (in fact has over 100 articles using it) so I would suggest a category for UK-mathematician-stub and this would on its own get the category down to a single page. Waacstats 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks like this was already proposed, so I've gone ahead and done it. The Euros are now at less than a listings page (though doubtless there's a deal of undersorting from Category:mathematician stubs. Alai 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Georgia (U.S. state) university stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Note: this proposal was for a Georgia Tech stub until Alai's excellent suggestion.

There should be a new subcategory of Category:Southern United States university stubs for Georgia Tech-related articles, similar to Category:University of Georgia stubs. It would be populated by appropriate Class 4 and Class 5 articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia Tech/Articles. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Video Game Character stubs

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

The result of the debate was use existing type. I have sighted clearly more that 100 stub articles referring to characters from popular video games. I believe that as this number is steadily increasing and that there is currently no stub category at all like this one, some action should be taken. Pointono 8.34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is. {{cvg-char-stub}} Sorry the cvg is so cryptic, but it stand for "Computer and video game". ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Fictional video game characters are not notable article. I think Wiki guidelines are that fictional characters of games should be marked to merge into the game instead of stubbedGoldenrowley 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit beyond our remit: if you want rid of the articles, then do merge them, prod them, take them to AfD, etc; while the stubs exist, we have to handle them somehow... Alai 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Dominica geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

A couple of days ago I wrote: BTW, I'm busy making a few stubs for underrepresented Caribbean countries, so don't be surprised to see a few more proposals like this fairly soon. This is the first result of that - dominica-geo-stub (currently upmerged) is now used on 62 stub articles, so a separate category is probably worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there don't seem to be any objections... Grutness...wha? 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:First Nations stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I proposed this before, but things are getting pressing as the pan-NA type is now over 800 types, this is clearly viable, and I haven't heard an alternative plan that would be, at least that corresonds to any of the permcats. Alai 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I kinda wondered why all of NA was lumped together like that. This split makes very good sense. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Cricket seasons postscript

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

The result of the debate was create.

These have grown so much that they'd now be almost oversized by themselves, and so rather than dumping three pageworths into cricket-season-stub directly, I'm further creating Australian, South African and NewZealand categories, plus upmerged {{Pakistan-cricket-season-stub}}, {{WestIndies-cricket-season-stub}}, {{India-cricket-season-stub}}, {{SriLanka-cricket-season-stub}} and {{Bangladesh-cricket-season-stub}} templates, which I further propose to un-upmerge as and when they hit 60, which looks liable to happen at any moment. Alai 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] New Zealand sportspeople

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

The result of the debate was create.

I've just had a quick look through the NZ bio-stubs, of which there are rapidly closing on 600 (not overlarge, but worth watching), and I did a quick tot-up and found that at least 115 of them were sportspeople (and of those, about 40 were rugby union players). Even assuming I didn't miss any (highly unlikely), a {{NZ-sport-bio-stub}} would reduce the NZ-bio category by almost 20%. It would also have three natural children, since there are already categories for NZ cricket, soccer, and rugby league players. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Stitch-in-time support. Alai 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Eli Falk 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Created - and I was wrong... looks like it'll depopulate the main NZ-bio-stub category by close to 50% ! Lots of rugby players, hockey players, swimmers and triathletes... Grutness...wha? 11:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • We should probably have seen that coming, given that there's already three per-sport "NZ" types (presumably having been driven by the need to split the other "axis"), but no {{NZ-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}... Alai 16:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:metalworking stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Seem to be at least the upper 30s, and it fits nicely with Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking. There are processes tossed into vague categories like "technology" and similar unfortunate problems. --Eyrian 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. Alai 07:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well metalworking is one of the things listed under subcagory of Category:decorative arts stubs but you can make a subcat if wished there. Goldenrowley 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily the best place for it - sure, some metalworking is decorative art, but some of it definitely isn't. A separate stub type might well be more useful, especially if there are a reasonable number of stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Jewelry is metalworking decorative art, plus some random metalworking art. I would suggest just making the stub and keeping it as a subcat in art (so you can find it there) but also under other places. Goldenrowley 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Music festival stubs

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

The result of the debate was create music-festival-stub. Festivals are now over 800, and there'd be 121 of these. FYI, Category:religious festivals, Category:film festivals and Category:cultural festivals are all at least in the 40s, if someone is gung-ho to split further. Alai 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • support Monni 06:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy support. All three of these have been proposed and approved in the past (not sure where in the archive they are, but they're there somewhere... about six months ago perhaps? Grutness...wha? 06:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Weird. Can't find it in the archives... perhaps I imagined it (?) Grutness...wha? 06:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Here it is. Looks like we only got the film one, so the 40-odd mentioned above is under-sorting. That was one proposal, and three vague allusions, though, just to be clear. Alai 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Could a category:countercultural festivals (or similar) absorb pagan, neopagan, and Nimbin Aquarius type festivals (Down-to-Earth Festivals, Alternative healing festivals, etc.)? Music festival or cultural festival do not fit some events that well. Seasalt 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about a permcat (not a stub type), that's not our business here, but it sounds plausible. Closest existing cat I can find is Category:subcultures; that's probably too broad, and Category:subculture festivals (subcultural!?) doesn't sound quite right. Alai 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Japanese-car-stub, Korean-car-stub

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

The result of the debate was do not create

There are some articles which are stubs on Japanese/Korean cars that need expansion. Categorising these will help. --SunStar Nettalk 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Right now, cars are organized by date, so a by-country split is probably not a good idea. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose as per naming guidelines. Monni 06:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose per both the above. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Pennsylvania politicians subcats

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

The result of the debate was create state-reps and state-senators; split by party as needed.

Parent is oversized at 884 stubs; I've done the best I can with the permcat names, but if anyone particularly would prefer {{cl|Member of the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania stubs}... Alai 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting you change first category name to: - Pennsylvania state members of House of Representatives Goldenrowley 06:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This proposal does not yield much relief. How about a split as we've done with Category:American film actor stubs based on decade of birth? Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That particular tactic was rather the split of last resort for me, but I'll grant you that the Congresscritters are a little thick on the ground, and it's certainly feasible. Specifically, 1810s..1850s births would each be viable. (Pesky systematic 19th century bias!) Alai 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility would be a split by party as has been done for the UK MP's. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Do the category names compare to whats done in other large states: California, Florida or New York? It seems you only need "releif" in the house of representative list. Since its politics couldn't you split along party lines of republic and democrat in the House of Reps? Goldenrowley 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
CW: you may not believe this, but it seems, at least as of the last dump, that the whole stub category, despite being extremely heavily categorised by job, place of birth, date of birth, date of death, and whatever else, has almost no by party categorisation. One socialist, to be exact. I can't quite believe it, in fact, but random sampling by hand seems to indicate much the same. (Not that I knew this initially -- I just failed to think of it.) I assume they do typically have parties, all the same. What about we go ahead with the state-reps and the state-senators, and defer action on the unreasonably-large US-reps for now, with a view to further splitting those by party, DoB, or whatever else? (Or agree in principle to do it by job and then by party, but subject to an actual double check on viability -- i.e., don't hold your breath on me implementing it any time soon, since I was hoping to automate this.)
GR: I believe that the permcats have similar name for all the US states, but that this is the first US state to be have its politicos further split. CA and NY are hovering around 500, and the Texans are less than a listings page! The Floridians are smaller again. Alai 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
For the U.S. Representatives and Senators getting party information is fairly simple. The Congressional Biographical Directory includes that information on all of its entries (with the caveat that it does not distinguish between the late 18C-early 19C Republicans and the modern Republicans. So while it might take some work, it is quite doable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In many cases, the info is in the actual article. I'm not suggesting it's "not doable", just it's "that which I do not propose to do", for the foreseeable future. Alai 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Support your splits without further categorizing by political party that was just an idea. I just wanted to make sure we're paralleling other most populated states.. I am surprised Pennsylvania took the lead and is going to be the first to divide, definitely break it between: Senators, Members of the House of Reps and the Judges/Judiciary branch. The 1st 2 on your list have the same meaning, I think. Goldenrowley 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously someone has been very busy with 19th century Pennsylvanian politicos... You're right, you wouldn't expect that this would "normally" happen, just through Brownian accretion of stubs. I believe the first, which corresponds to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, are Federal Representatives, whereas the second and third are state congressional types. (Category:Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Category:Pennsylvania State Senators) Federal Senators don't seem to be near the threshold. Alai 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that the first category should be for federal legislators, while the second is for state legislators. Federal Senators are very unlikely to ever be split in this manner, as no state has yet sent 60 different people to the US Senate, a statistic which is unlikely to change anytime soon. Also, US Senators tend to garner enough public attention to have articles longer than stub length. Also, support split as proposed, also split US House reps by party if someone wants to put that kind of time in. —CComMack (t–c) 08:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
D'oh, I should really have realized that point, given the arithmetic of the situation ((2*210)/(6*av. number of terms...)). Given that, though it won't help here of course, one wonders if a Category:United States Senator stubs isn't a plan. Alai 16:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I should have seen this one coming: the eternal problem of overlap. Aside from the US-reps, 400-odd of whom are in none of the other categories, none of the others seem to be viable if one only counts those eligible for just one such. Nor does a "state congressman" type work on that basis. So I may go ahead with only the HoR types... Alai 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] North Yorkshire geography, by unitary authority/district

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

The result of the debate was create as Hambleton geography stubs. These are currently at 837, and given that there's only ten local government subdivisions (three of them UAs), some of them are bound to be viable. Unfortunately, there's no permcats for most of these, so I have no detailed counts to offer you. Alai 04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. The UAs are probably viable, I'd say,. May be some potential problems with the naming of York-geo-stub if it's one of them (I haven't checked), since it's a opretty common name around the world (Odespite this being the one all the others are named for). Grutness...wha? 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
York is indeed one of the UAs, though on the basis of the permcat Category:York (which I'd overlooked: those are a little hither and yon in the category structure), there's only 31 of them. On the basis of the article and category names, I don't think the naming issue is too pressing, though. Alai 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've created and populated upmerged templates for the UAs, but no joy on getting any of them even over 50. However, I've found where many of them have been hiding: Hambleton district. I've created an upmerged {{Hambleton-geo-stub}}, which is now at 66 and counting, so I'll create a category for this unless there are swift and strident objections. Category:Hambleton geography stubs, Category:Hambleton, North Yorkshire geography stubs or Category:Hambleton district geography stubs? Alai 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Shinto-stub}}, Category:Shinto stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

There are currently over 100 articles assessed at Stub-class within the Category:Shinto (see Category:Stub-Class Shinto articles. This stub and category is being proposed primarily for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Shinto to assist in assessment and categorization of articles. Badbilltucker 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Nice work. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the existing talk-page cat, should be fairly readily populable by 'bot. Alai 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Shintoism is a mjor religion.Bakaman 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm surprised we don't already have this one. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportEli Falk 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe a little torii for the stub icon? A2Kafir 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Someone already made an icon: Torii of Itsukushima - 30 pixels high.jpg - A2Kafir 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Goldenrowley 03:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Falklands-geo-stub category, Lesotho-geo-stub and Tonga-geo-stub templates

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

The result of the debate was create.

After some good work by User:MacRusgail, there are now 75 geo-stubs marked with {{Falklands-geo-stub}}, more than enough for it to be de-upmerged and have its own Category:Falkland Islands geography stubs. Both Lesotho and Tonga have now got more than half the number of stubs for a separate category, so should probably have separate upmerged templates - {{Lesotho-geo-stub}} and {{Tonga-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 09:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy create lol... that's actually a valid vote. Monni 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - I've also got Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (hey, doesn't that sound like a jazz band?) up to enough for an upmerged template, so add {{SaintVincent-geo-stub}} to those proposals. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support-- lots of little peninsulas, creeks, etc. to catalog and expand over time. A2Kafir 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the geo-guru Grutness! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Heh. BTW, I'm busy making a few stubs for underrepresented Caribbean countries, so don't be surprised to see a few more proposals like this fairly soon. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, naturally. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Sapindales stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

The tree stubs are now oversized, this is the only likely-looking split available from my mouldy data. The palms are getting there too, though. Alai 07:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What about evergreen vs. deciduous as a split? A2Kafir 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be how they're permcatted, but rather by order, or other taxon. Though of course, "tree" isn't a scientific classification either... Alai 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll think about it further. A2Kafir 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Broadleaf trees as against conifers would be consistent with the taxonomy, though it would also make for a rather broad split. Alai 06:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Basic, basic stubs

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

The result of the debate was do not create

The absence of stubs like these at this late date is more than rather inexplicable: it is rather downright inexplicable.

{{Device-stub}},{{Implement-stub}},{{Invention-stub}}

Example page for {{Implement-stub}}: Non-permanent_marker

Example page for {{Invention-stub}}: Rubber Bandits

You get the drift. JDG 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose - these categories are way too broad and could be applied to virtually anything. Nearly everything humans use could be considered a device, an implement, or an invention - if not all three. Please clarify if you believe there is a clearer definition. Aelfthrytha 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There aren't even Category:devices or Category:implements permcats. Invention-stub is slightly less infeasible, as a subtype of tech-stub, but that would be more usefully split by type of technology. Oppose all, and suggest a less patronising tone for any future proposals. Alai 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too broad. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. May be worth splitting Category:Tools stubs (why the plural, anyway?) into a couple of categories (workshop tools, office tools, etc), but that's about all that's really neeeded - this proposal would be waaay too broad a scope. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should ask the creator about that? Sounds speedy-renamable to Category:tool stubs to me, if no-one has any objections... Alai 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's the best laugh I've had in awhile... =D And no objections to the speedy rename. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{UK-drummer-stub}} / Category:British drummer stubs

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

The result of the debate was create, using British drummer stubs. Musician stubs are still oversized. Drummer stubs and British musician stubs are both creeping up the ranks (they're both at 4 pages currently). This'll help narrow things down, and it'll meet threshold. Crystallina (EDIT: I see the template's upmerged...but I'm pretty sure there are enough out there that don't use it.) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Cricket subcats

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

The result of the debate was create.

Cricket-stubs are well over 900, and after a chat and some cucumber sandwiches at the tea interval with the people at the appropriate wikiproject, I'd like to propose:

These have grown rather dramatically since the time of the last db dump (next one is taking a looooong time), so I don't have meaningful numbers, but I'm pretty confident they're all viable. Alai 02:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Org-stub splits

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

The result of the debate was create.

The org-stubs are currently one of the largest stub categories. So I propose the following national splits. I've looked through all perm cats with StubSense, which wans't that much use, however for two reasons. Organisations aren't very well categorized and the numbers are often bloated because specific organizations often have they're own category and all articles related to these organizations then turn up in StubSense. Looking through StubSense's list I am, however sure that the following countries have over 60 org-stubs, so they should get templates and categories:

  • Australia
  • Italy
  • Spain

Of the following I am certain they will get at least 30 stubs so I propose only templates for them:

  • China
  • France
  • Ireland
  • Israel
  • Japan
  • Mexico
  • Netherlands
  • Pakistan
  • South Africa
  • Ukraine

In addition to that I think it's safe to say that continental templates and categories will be viable for Europe, Asia, and South America and that a template will be viable for the Africa.--Carabinieri 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Stubsense data: wow! I can confirm what Car. says about the lack of categorisation, having tried and failed to crunch these numbers myself. Support. Alai 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good work! Support all (I think Africa will easily make category threshold, given that South Africa will presumably be upmerged initially.) —CComMack (t–c) 08:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that Africa will probably reach threshold, but I tried to be as conservative as possible as far as listing countries/continents here goes, because the StubSense numbers are all very inexact.--Carabinieri 12:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, and an echo of the thumbs up from Alai & CCM. Even as a true blue k1w1 I'd find it strange if you can't reach 60 Aussie org-stubs given that there are over 90 in the NZ-org-stub category. Are we really that more organised in the North Island and the South Island than the folks over in the West Island? Grutness...wha? 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I hestitate to ask what you guys might call East Island... I found 22 org-stubs with under Category:Organisations based in Australia -- which is more than shows up for India, and just about all the above. Which really indicates nothing, aside from lousy catting on that axis. Alai 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops... Completely forgot about India. Add it to the list of countries that should get template and cat. It's definately viable.-Carabinieri 12:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Mixed-drinks-stub}} / Category:Mixed drinks stub

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

The result of the debate was create as Mixed-drink-stub and Mixed drink stubs. An SfD involving {{cocktail-stub}} and some related templates, along with the renaming of WikiProject Cocktails to WikiProject Mixed Drinks, and the splitting of the List of cocktails into several smaller, more specific mixed-drink lists, and the desire to keep everything simple, it is proposed that the current {{cocktail-stub}} / Category:Cocktail stubs be moved, recreated, or whatever needs to be done to change the names to {{Mixed-drinks-stub}} / Category:Mixed drinks stub. The preference would be to keep "drinks" plural, since that is how it appears everywhere else, but if the singular naming thing is mandatory, then so be it. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support per the proposal. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This would normally be done through SFD... I can't see any problems with renaming, though - as you implied - we do normally use the singular. If WP Cocktails used {{cocktail-stub}}, then I don't really see why WP Mixed drinks shouldn't use {{Mixed-drink-stub}} - especially since it's a natural child of {{drink-stub}}. And the category would be Category:Mixed drink stubs - that's drink singular, and stubs plural :) Grutness...wha? 09:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as per Grutness. That conforms to our NG. (See, I linked it this time!) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support cat rename (though really that's an SFD thing, as Grutness says) but keep the existing {{cocktail-stub}} template as a redirect or upmerged template, not least as Category:cocktails still exists. Alai 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - It was requested by me in the SFD, but the SFD has closed and been archived now without any renaming being done. Seeing that, I brought it here. As to the plurality (is that a word?), I totally understand NG and its purpose (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it in my proposal). The only reason it is being proposed to be plural is because all the various "mixed drinks" related articles, WikiProject, and categories are pluralized (how many variations on that word can I create?). It makes sense to make it plural to match, but it also makes sense to make it singular to match WSS standards. The stub template name doesn't concern me as much as the category name. If the category could be plural, the template could certainly be singular. Is that a fair compromise? If not, make them singular. I won't lose any sleep over it either way. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I see now that said renaming was mentioned in passing in the SFD discussion, but even with the benefit of hindsight I'm struggling to see a clear proposal, much less general agreement with it. Anyway, I'm prepared to consider this a coda to that discussion and go ahead and do this. It's normal to make them singular, since {{mixed-drinks-stub}} on an article about a mixed drink isn't very logical, and Category:mixed drinks stubs isn't very grammatical, or at least sounds very awkward, as the noun phrase is being used attributively, and the number is expressly is the "stubs", plural. The normal pattern is that is a permcat is "Xs", then the stub cat is "X stubs" and the stub template is "X-stub". I think that's only logical myself, but possibly I've just "gone native" too much. You can always create an additional redirect if you find the singular too painful to use. Alai 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(Still chuckling over the "gone native" comment.) Sometimes I try to be too logical for my own good. Singular is fine. And thank you to the person (I think it was you, Alai) who went through and made all the changes. I'm used to cleaning up my own messes, and it was a real pleasant surprise to see someone else had done it for me this time. I really appreciate it. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 11:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Africa-protected-area-stub}} / Category:African protected area stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

The category is oversized (nearly 600). All continents could probably use one, but I am starting with Africa.--Thomas.macmillan 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please don't start calling categories < 600 oversized... If I worked out how many of those there were, I'd start sobbing. :) Support this, and suggest upmerged templates at least for the most likely-looking countries. Alai 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with the usual caveat about double-stubbing with country-geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Make that nearly 800 Protected Area stubs, just in case anyone was wondering--Thomas.macmillan 05:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Even stronger support, then! Alai 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] United States record label subcats

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

The result of the debate was create as United States independent record label stubs. US labels are now oversized (over 900).

or else:

or at a bit of a stretch, bearing in mind there's a lot of undercategorisation, by genre, of which the most likely-looking are:

I'm inclined to go with one of the first two, don't much mind which. Alai 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] music-documentary-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.

We have "documentary-stub" and "musical-film-stub", but films on concerts or musicians are not "musicals". I think this would be a useful stub category, as such films have their own music-related audience and editors, so grouping them would separate them from documentaries in general, and might help with their upgrading. Hoverfish Talk 08:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but at the moment I only find 53 items under Category:Documentary films or Category:Film stubs that would qualify. If there are articles in Category:Music video stubs that are actually about full-length films, maybe that would up the ante a bit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I there are a few, as well as numerous video collections, as distinct from single "short film" videos per se, which I suppose is a reasonable scoping, though not one made explicit at present. While there's no separate categorisation of Category:concert films at present, I wonder if separate tagging of concert-film-stub and documentary-film-stub might not also be useful (upmerged for the moment, obviously). Alai 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Me and my big mouth. Well, those aren't categorised under documentaries, but I think they technically should be, so close enough. Alai 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] US newspaper subcats

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

The result of the debate was create California-newspaper-stub. Slightly oversized; the following possibilities suggest themselves:

I think I'd go with the state/regional axis, personally. Alai 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Though splitting off student newspapers makes sense, it's hard to think what other similar splits could be made. At least with states you know you've got 50 subdivisions all nicely available. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's the weekly/daily/other frequency split that could be made as well as a morning/evening split for the daily papers, but that would only yield temporary relief I'd guess. Still, except for the student newspaper split, I agree that its probably best to go with a regional/state split and keep the other ideas in reserve if ever needed for a overlarge state-level newspaper stubtype. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Permcatting on the that basis seems to be rather limited, though admittedly there's a Category:weekly newspapers that I missed, as I only looked in the U.S. permcat tree (and there's no U.S. subcat thereof). Alai 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There are several newly created California newspapers stubs that were just redirects to the publisher's regional publishing group, so that cat should now be over 60. BlankVerse 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Punk albums by decade

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

The result of the debate was create.

Parent is oversized, 2000s already split out. Alai 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Support both nominations. Goldenrowley 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Armour/armor stubs

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

The result of the debate was create to follow permcats; armor is main, armour is redirect. StubSense is finding enough articles under the main armor category and its subcategories for this to seem viable. It'd help to whittle Category:Military stubs. I don't have a preference here for either spelling (I suppose armour, since it's what's used on the Wikipedia article), but whichever one we don't use would need to be a redirect. Crystallina 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. I know I'm biased due to my own use of the spelling, but I'd go for armour as the main spelling (with redirect from armor) as per the article. Grutness...wha? 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd not recognizing the word "armour". I'd think it was a French word. I'd have you say "Military Armour/Armor" ... I don't know what armour is without a helper outer like that. Goldenrowley 06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with either Armor or Armour, but while the article is Armour, the category is Category:Armor and that spelling is used on all of its sub categories with the exception of Category:Medieval armour stubs from the Discoveries page. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] State subclasses of United States government stubs (US-gov-stub)

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

The result of the debate was create per-state templates for now, as needed. There seem to be sub-categories for fully-fleshed-out articles on state governments (for instance, Category:Government_of_Texas), however there are not stub categories for this level. I was just starting a stub article for the Lieutenant Governor of California (corresponding to the article on the Lieutenant Governor of Texas), and noticed this discrepancy. A quick glance at Category:United_States_government_stubs immediately reveals that there are many articles about state governments under this heading: Alaska Senate, Arizona Territorial Legislature, Arkansas Constitution, California Constitution, California Resources Agency, California State Controller, seven different articles concerning Hawaii... An exhaustive list would be large. Would it be worthwhile to separate these out, so editors such as myself who have a particular interest in their own state government would be able to more easily locate articles in need of expansion? Best regards, Rmharman 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First, BlankVerse was kind enough to point out to me that, while the California WikiProject doesn't have enough articles directly listed in it (and I'd also note that not all of them would fall under a theoretical US-CA-gov-stub class), the List of State of California agencies, departments, and commissions is much larger than 60. Not all of the articles have been created yet, but certainly there's a lot of potential articles there...

Second, given that there's a conversation active on "Pennsylvania politicians subcats", perhaps a better idea than what I originally suggested would be to convert some of the $STATE-politician stub categories into broader $STATE-politics-and-government categories, thus pulling in the kinds of articles I had in mind. In some ways it would make sense to talk about the people running gov't, and the gov't they run, under the same heading. There are definitely more than 60 articles on people and/or gov't entities, that relate to some specific state, for a general US-state-govpol-stub class. I'm not sure how many individual states would qualify. In any case, I'm not deeply invested in this proposal, it just seemed like a good idea to distinguish state-gov't from fed, and to further distinguish individual states, for users who are interested in their state's policy and politics. Apologies if this is rehashing an old topic. Rmharman 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote myself: "My guess is the number of current Wikipedia articles is probably somewhere close to WP:WSS's stub creation threshhold (60 stub articles), but you can also point out that there are more than 500 California state government agencies, departments, and commissions (see List of State of California agencies, departments, and commissions)"
To clarify: My best guess (without doing any research) is that there are probably 40-60 existing Calif. govt. articles that are stubs, although they may be hard to find because they will be unstubbed, or tagged with just the California, politics, or goverment stubs. That number will undoubtably grow much larger, especially with someone like Rmharman now editing on the Wikipedia.
FYI: {{Oregon-gov-stub}} / Category:Oregon government stubs currently has 55 articles. I'd be surprised if we didn't top that number.
There is already a {{California-politician-stub}} with 502 articles. There have been a couple of editors who have been doing bios for ALL of the state senators and representatives. That number could double as people add all the other state offices (Lieut. Gov., Atty. Gen., etc), as well as lots of local politicians (mayors of Los Angeles, etc.), and even pre-statehood officials. BlankVerse 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds "close enough for government work", as it were... At any rate, seems you have enough for it to be viable by the time anyone got around to thinking of deleting it, so I'll support this. Alai 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{California-university-stub}} / Category:California university stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I just found out about {{US-west-university-stub}} / Category:Western United States university stubs, even though its been around since 31 March 2006. When I checked, there were 342 stubs. A quick look through the names suggests that 1/5th to 1/3rd of the stubs are from California, which would put it at roughly 70-114 stubs. The odds are that there are probably more unstubed universities in category:Universities and colleges in California, and especially in the subcategory Category:California Community Colleges system.

The other question is what to do with {{california-school-stub}} / category:California school stubs, which is currently at 639 stubs and sure to grow much larger. (FYI:There are over 1,000 schools just in the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the odds are that every one will eventually get their own Wikipedia article—I don't even want to guess how many will be stubs.) BlankVerse 10:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support the California-university-stub type; ideally this would have been created as an upmerged template in the first place, which is the approach we've generally suggested for these admittedly slightly artificial regional categories. If anyone wants to do that after the fact for the remainder, then support that too, naturally. I'd suggest something similar for the Calfornian schools: create per-county templates, upmerged to "generally recognised Californian regions" until such times as they're viable separately. Alai 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Further sorting of {{France-stub}} and {{France-bio-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was do not create

The proposed stubs have around 60 articles each. STTW (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they will reach 60 articles? I'm just a bit skeptikal, because the {{Germany-law-bio-stub}} and the {{Germany-engineer-stub}}, which you both proposed, only reached 25 and 38 articles respectively, unless there's just more articles that should be sorted into the categories.--Carabinieri 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not really done with sorting of the Germany related articles, took a wikibreak in December. More articles would be coming in the stub categories as the WikiProject Germany and France article assessment gains more pace. STTW (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
After doing stub sorting of {{Germany-bio-stub}} now we have 35 in {{Germany-law-bio-stub}} an 55 in {{Germany-engineer-stub}}. More will follow when I sort {{Germany-stub}}. STTW (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If stub-sorting has to wait on the much-vaunted 1.0 article assessments, I suspect it'll be waiting a long time. (I wish they'd just make up their minds what's going in, and what's not, rather than making quite such a three-ring circus out of it.) I'd also like to see some more precise and/or confident counts on these, sensible as they might be in theory. Alai 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, Category:France stubs doesn't really show much need for anything other than weeding out - doesn'tlook like huge numbers of mil, music or sport stubs in it - but there are loads of geo-stubs and bio-stubs in there! Mind you, there could easily be undersorting into that cat from the generalmil,music and sporrts stub cats... Grutness...wha? 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Biochemist stub

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

The result of the debate was create.

I have found all but sixty biochemists in the 400-odd entries in "Category:Biologist stubs". They are listed on my user page. I propose to create a biochemist stub as a sub-category of biologist stubs.
Scolaire 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Support. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Support, but also make it a sub-type of chemist stubs.
Support, but also make it a sub-type of chemist stubs.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] continuation of {{money-unit-stub}} discussion

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

The result of the debate was create.

The past discussion is here. I didn't want to plow ahead without asking for comments, because the discussion was inconclusive; I contributed to that by confusing currency and the broader term money. So, this is what I propose:

That sound OK? A2Kafir 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I guess I vote my favourite, WP:SFD. Monni 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Why SFD? This is a combination proposal/renamed with nothing really being deleted. Yes, renames are usually dealt with at SFD, but I'd rather keep the discussion centralized (especially considering /P is 5 days and SFD is 7 days, it could create problems in closing the whole discussion).~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It's just wiki slang for rename or delete. Actually it would also clear history of Category:Currency stubs. Monni 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support broadening scope, renaming currency stubs and creating money-unit stubs. However, the Category:Currency debate should really go at WP:CFD as those are not stub categories at all. Also, I would prefer Category:Money unit stubs to match both {{money-unit-stub}} and Category:Money stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As Alai says, I think the "be bold" directive applies to the new-category issue. As for category renaming, since this is a stub category, all you have to do is rename it in the stub template, then create the new category, then list the old one as a category for deletion. Or can categories be redirected? A2Kafir 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As to the permcats, since no renamings or deletions are required, that would seem to be under the category of "just do it". For what it's worth, I'd prefer Category:specific currencies, to reduce the potential confusion with Category:currency. Alai 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Category:Specific currencies is OK for me... Monni 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Brazilian state geography

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

The result of the debate was create.

Parent's over 900, and only 300-odd are categorised by state, but this'd be a start, at least. Alai 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup - Brazil's needed doing for a while and these look ready to split. Have all the states got templates? Grutness...wha? 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If these are states of Brazil, I support, but if they are nebulous regions, no.Goldenrowley 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These are states.--Carabinieri 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] {{psych-book-stub}} / Category:Psychology book stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Piqued by the comment on this page's talk page, I checked and sure enough, there are 60 articles that qualify. Plus this might channel off some of the annoyingly vague "popular culture books" that deal with self-help psychology. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this one, it will be easy to use and remember. Goldenrowley 06:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Split of Euro-athletics-bio-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.

This category is still growing and there is some scope for a further split {{Ukraine-athletics-bio-stub}} has 60+ articles so I would like to propose Category:Ukrainian athletics biography stubs Someone has been creating Norwegian athletes like mad (100+) so I would like to propose {{Norway-athletics-bio-stub}} and Category:Norwegian athletics biography stubs Also to aid later splitting {{Belarus-athletics-bio-stub}} as there are 40+ articles which would be marked with this. Waacstats 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongly support all, no reason not to speedy the upmerged one. Alai 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I like how organized we're getting. Goldenrowley 06:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Geekscape

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

The result of the debate was moot. I propose the stub status be added to Geekscape. It's an extremely short article that seems like it could have a lot more information.

So add it already. This page is for discussing new types of stubs, not whether to add a stub to an article!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Massive stub sorting of American films

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

The result of the debate was do not create

I propose several new stub templates to be attatched to American films organized by decade. As there are tens of thousands of US films I would recommend something using the 30px iTemplate:1920s-US-film-stub and Template:1930s-US-film-stub and Template:1990s-US-film-stub etc etc. At present I beleive there are only categories for the genres a stub category to distinguish American film stubs might be very useful and encourage people to write into fuller articles. At present some 9/10 of American films are actually not categorized in Category:American films so I beleive these stub categories could be very useful. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC) The stub categories would also highlight the fuller American film articles from the stubs that need a lot of work. For example if I saw the stub categories I could go throguh and imrpove every film that needs removing of its stub status E.g Category:American film actor, 1920s birth stubs exists so why not 1920s American films stubs? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Most of these films are already stubbed by genre, which is the preferred stub choice in the films category. Generally stubbers only use a country-film-stub if the genre is not easily defined. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't sound like a good plan to me. There's some value in <country>-film-stub types for those representing "small" countries whose films might represent a specialist area for some editors, but "American films" are probably the majority of all the film articles, and are de facto part of global culture. Also, if we were to have a US-film-stub, splitting it first by genre would be the more consistent thing to do. Alai 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:Domotics-stub

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

The result of the debate was do not create

I propose it. --Mac 11:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • oppose. With fewer than 40 articles in Category:Domotics (some of which don't actually seem to be about domotics), there are clearly not 60 stubs which could take this. In any case, proposing a stub type once it's already been listed for deletion on SFD is a bit pointless. Grutness...wha? 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Extinct mammal stubs / Template:Extinct-mammal-stub

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

The result of the debate was create lagomorph-stub. There seems to be more than enough stubs in Category:Mammal stubs that would be able to support this new subcategory. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that there was an agreed proposal in November last year for {{paleo-mammal-stub}}, which would cover a considerable overlap to this one. Since it's been accepted it can be created straight away if you want. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah! That works for me! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone and created the stub and template, listed the stub where it needs to be listed, and moved the articles I think needed to move. This brings the otherwise unsorted Mammal stubs down from 190 to 127 (with 87 total stubs in the new category - I found a few that weren't already mammal-stubs...). I'm wondering if we can reasonably create 2-3 more stub categories to handle the majority of these 127: armadillos, lagomorphs (pikas and rabbits, etc), and cetaceans. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion about {{lagomorph-stub}} in October, if that's any help. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It appears the result was "create", but again the stub wasn't created. I'll... um... hop to it! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Czech musical group stubs

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

The result of the debate was keep; upmerge until it gets 60+ articles. I'm new to Wiki, guys, so go easy on my if I screw this up. I was working on the Prague Symphony Orchestra page and realized that the Czech Republic doesn't have a music stubs group, though most other countries have one. Is it time to add one? I already created a Template:Czech-band-stub, but did not yet create the actual stub category. What do you think?

  • comment country needs 60 "band" stubs to get own category. If there isn't enough, template needs to feed to "parent" stub category. Monni 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • alright, understood -- thanks Monni! Haverpopper 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Jewish organizations stub

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

The result of the debate was create.

There are currently eleven pages of organization stubs, and the Judaism stub section has ample room for improvement. Since there's also a "Christian organizations" stub, and in light of the fact that many Jewish organizations name themselves after Jewish concepts (i.e. it's easy to get confused), there may be a need. --Catchthedream 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

tentative support, but with the proviso that these "Jewish organisations" are those specifically related to the religion, as is the case with the Christian organisation stubs. I'm happy if we can make it clear that, say the Jewish Federation article is fine for this, but not Likud or (for instance) Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth (I'm guessing with this one, forgive me). It shouldn't be a problem, but it's better to clarify it from the outset. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds great. Thanks. --Catchthedream 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support. I don't think there are nearly enough, but I will help populate and spread the word to the WikiJews. - crz crztalk 08:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Togo geography stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

Seems like someone has gone on a bit of a spree creating stub articles about the geography of Togo - there are now over 70. There's already a template - a category would seem to be sensible. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • weak support Neither of the parents seems oversized yet. Monni 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • longstanding precedent is for general country-stub, country-geo-stub, and country-bio-stub to be split once they reach 60 irrespective of the size of parents. Some continent-geo-stub types have been emptied completely over the last couple of years once all the countries in the continent reach required size, since the continent splits are regarded more as semi-temporary measures until countries get to size than anything else. As to the geo-stub parent "not being oversized yet", that's only because it's been whittled down repeatedly every time a country gets to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Looking into stubs in Category:West Africa geography stubs, I don't see it getting totally emptied unless some of the articles are expanded to non-stub level. Like my vote says, I'm not opposing the proposal, just questioning its priority. In most normal cases you don't even need to propose creating category if template already exists or you can speedy the creation. Monni 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right - there are nine stubs in there which are for large areas which couldn't have separate country stubs. the same is true for the 37 US-geo-stubs which can't be split by state, the seven Canada-geo-stubs which cannot be split by province, etc etc etc. If and when all African countries have their own geo-stub templates and categories, the five African subregions will between them have 16 stubs, to go with the one currently in the main Category:Africa geography stubs. At that poiint it would probably make sense to lose/redirect the subcontinent templates, in the same way we have with the US sub-region ones, and move all of those stubs into the main Africa geography stubs cat. Don't worry - I keep track :) And yes, Valentinian, they have all previously been given their own cats at that stage. Currently only 65 countries don't have their own geo-stub categories, and Togo is by far the largest of them. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. All other countries I can remember have been split off when they reached 60-65 geo stub articles. The same should apply here. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, but needs to be added to the ST list - big pages seem to be uneditable to me at the moment (I'm using borrowed computer equipment, and it doesn't seem to like WP much). Grutness...wha? 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Togo-geo-stub}} added to ST. Better luck with the next computer. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Oregon radio station stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

US radio stations are oversized yet again; mostly I've been tagging these with upmerged templates, but I'll mention Oregon in particular, since there's 65 of 'em. Alai 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. Aelfthrytha 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{Israel-mil-bio-stub}}, {{SouthAfrica-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Italy-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Argentina-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Norway-mil-bio-stub}} templates, for now

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

The result of the debate was create.

After hand sorting the military personnel stubs, I've noticed that these 5 could use at least templates for now with most deserving categories in the near future. Israel and South Africa have there own military stubs, so they can feed into those and their respective (Middle East and Africa) mil-bio stubs. Italy, Norway and Argentina can feed into their respective national bio stubs and continental mil-bio stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Why not create mil-stubs for Italy, Norway, and Argentina first then?--Carabinieri 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Moscow stubs / Template:Moscow-stub

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

The result of the debate was create.

Parallel to the recently created Category:Saint Petersburg stubs. Moscow is twice the size of SPb and is at least as qualified. Articles currently marked with {{Center-Russia-geo-stub}} - crz crztalk 08:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As with the aformentioned StP stub, provided there are 60 and the geo ones are double stubbed, then support. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Sussex Stubs

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

The result of the debate was create with CamelCase. I propose that maybe we split the {{sussex-geo-stub}} into Template:Westsussex-geo-stub and {{eastsussex-geo-stub}} Cyberdemon007 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - this one has been on my "to do" list for over a year now. That would be {{WestSussex-geo-stub}} and {{EastSussex-geo-stub}} (with a capital S), BTW. With well over 300 stubs it's about time we completed the collection of English county geo-stubs and split this. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Further comment - note that, since we use ceremonial counties, Brighton would count in... um, which is it - East Sussex? - rather than getting its own stub type. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
East is East and West is West. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] European football biography stubs split

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

The result of the debate was create.

  • The Slavic footballers need special status because the language is differ from Western Europe. Slovak ones need one because there is few article for current domestic players in their top division. And i consider create a Template (or few, likes Category:Nordic football club stubs) and a Category for Baltic states. Also a TP and cat for Caucasus. Matthew_hk tc 07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really follow why having a different language is a specific reason for having "special status", whatever that means - we don't have {{Basque-footy-bio-stub}} separate from {{Spain-footy-bio-stub}}, although its language is completely unrelated, nor do we specially separate Albanian or Maltese football biography stubs thought their languages are also not closely related to those of their larger neighbours. I'm also not too thrilled with the prospect of "Nordic" football biography stubs, since the term Nordic means different things to different people. Baltic states is more reasonable, perhaps, though with a small "s" as in Category:Baltic states. What sort of numbers are we talking here, anyway? Grutness...wha? 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Support (upmerged) templates but not grouped categories. I'm not the biggest fan of the "Nordic" category either and I think would be a bad idea to let it set precedent. However, the Nordic Countries is a rather uncontroversial term and it has to do with a mostly common culture in the five countries. It has nothing to do with language: Finnish is incomprehensible to all other nations save the Estonians (and Estonia is not a Nordic nation). Icelanders and Faroese understand each other but the other nations don't. On the other hand, people from Denmark, Norway and Sweden have a good chance of understanding one another. The dispute you must be thinking about relates to the word "Scandinavia" where DK+NO+SW have one definition not necessarily shared by other nations. I wouldn't mind seeing the "Nordic" category disappear again. Grouping DK+NO+SW for themselves because of the Royal League would also be a bad idea. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "Scandinavian" would be a more appropriate word - though a quick check of relevant articles seems to indicate that "Nordic" is the preferred term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.249.72 (talk • contribs)
I would warn against that. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden "Scandinavia" equals these three countries. Others include Finland and / or Iceland, and some even exclude Denmark. See Talk:Scandinavia for more about this issue. I'd prefer not bringing this dispute over here. The category contains templates for both Finland, the Faroes and Iceland and the latter two are located pretty far from the Scandinavian peninsula, but this is of course the situation viewed through Danish glasses :) I love the word "Scandinavia" much more, but "Nordic" presents far fewer problems. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Support as per Valentinian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monni1995 (talk • contribs)
I've begun the Slovak template/category. Poulsen 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem in Numbers for Ukraine. Matthew_hk tc 09:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] {{Africa-newspaper-stub}} and Category:African newspaper stubs

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

The result of the debate was create.

I found myself looking for the subcat to Category:Newspaper stubs for some Uganda articles and found that there wasn't one. Even keeping in mind that some maintenance seems in order, that cat is plenty full and probably needs a further split for Latin America and the Caribbean ({{LAC-newspaper-stub}}?) and Middle East, and maybe even Oceania/Australia. - BanyanTree 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Africa is well-scoped; how many would there be? However, for the Americas, we generally split into North and South, rather than Latin (and Gringo?) The suggested template name is a tad over-abbreviated though, please don't use that. Alai 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment LAC doesn't even list "Latin America and the Caribbean" as possible definition. Monni 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Really? I thought the United Nations geoscheme would be the default and I've certainly used "LAC" in professional contexts. Just ignore the other regions then; I'll leave a proposal for the other regions to someone who knows the wiki naming schemes. My main concern is the Africa stub. I can't use AWB on a Mac but my quick count is 23 articles with titles indicating an African location and a spot check of some of the Arabic language titles indicate a North African origin. If I had to guess, I'd say it's around the magical 50 with all the non-obvious titles, such as The Weekly Observer, and Arabic-language titles included. And now I'm off to edit LAC... - BanyanTree 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Latin America and the Caribbean" opens up too many definitional cans of worms. The usual split is actually north, south, central, and caribbean, and there's no reason why not to have four up[merged templates at least.n The same with Africa - an upmerged template would be a good start, and we can easily do category splits if and when the numbers are appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I wish I could claim we were more consistent about this; we have something of a mixture of purely by-country, by-continent, by UN region and sub-region, and by-whatever-the-permcat-does. If we could be moreso, that would certainly be a Good Thing. The aspects of this are, can we make the permcats more consistent in the first place (not a simple task, as the category system is "managed" in an extremely diffuse manner); and in those cases we end up adding more structure than the permcats have, whether we go with a given scheme on a systematic basis. Alai 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] {{industrial-design-stub}} and {{comm-design-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was create upmerged template. My proposal is to create these as stubs, and they can upmerge to "design stub category" until they are large enough to have a stub category page of their own. "comm" is short for "communication" and includes things like: graphic design, web design and print design. I think it will be easier to disambiguate these two design fields early on, it will be easier to disambiguate them later, and they can link to those specific articles. Goldenrowley 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems good to me. Alai 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] end

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/January_2007&oldid=390493798"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export