Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old business[edit]

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


Proposals, July 2009[edit]

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.


{{Mathematical-biology-stub}}[edit]

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.
{{Mathematical-biology-stub}} Under Category:Biology Nimbios (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second split of Category:Brazil stubs[edit]

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 said there would be more, another 5 upmerged state templates have reached 60 propose the following (speedy)

more will follow, though these should get the parent off the oversized list. Waacstats (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that the following

name of Acre chosen to match existing disambiguation. this will take it off the oversized list. Waacstats (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Military-units-and-formations-of-France-stub}}[edit]

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.
Self-evident from the category of the same name. I'm a first-timer; I would have thought a stub automatically existed for every category. Am I missing something? Petershank (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's where our hard toil and tears come into play I'm afraid. Your template is way too much of a mouthful. I'd recommend simply {{France-military-struct-stub}} if the template is needed. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That name won't do either Dr B - that would mean forts (struct = buildings and structures), and we use "mil" for military. I'd suggest that {{France-mil-unit-stub}} would be a better way to go, though I'm not sure whether that form or another is used for other countries which have such a type (if any). Grutness...wha? 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the only country we have currently split out is the UK, I say we use that as a template and so Grutness would be correct in the name, I would however hold off on a category as it appears to be on the low side. It may be worth creating {{Germany-mil-unit-stub}} and {{US-mil-unit-stub}} aswell. Waacstats (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I knew that the full name proposal wasn't correct! Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Seismologist-stub}}[edit]

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.
Links people from this profession. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Asia-scientist-stub}}[edit]

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.
Would be useful to tie odd biographies from some of the more obscure asian countries together. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this but would prefer upmerged by country templates, given that we have 5 categories already I think a category is a given. Waacstats (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:China stubs[edit]

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.
If you think how vast China is and that the near 800 articles we have presently within them are likely to grow considerably I think now would be a good point to create regional templates for general topics like {{Qinghai-stub}} and {{Sichuan-stub}}. I'd imagine some are not easily organised by region and there will be a lot of uneveness towards the main cities like Beijing and Shanghai but I am certain a lot of them could be reorganised. At some point is may even me reasonable to create sub cats of this like {{Sichuan-bio-stub}} etc. but at present I doubt it would be worth it yet. I think it is owrthy creating the templates anyway and the geo stubs can also be sub categorised from the main provincial cats. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be better splitting this in the same way as other countries for now, splitting out -newspaper-, -sport- etc. I haven't loked at the category so I don't know what would be viable and what wouldn't but will try to look later on tonight. Waacstats (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want anything too localised but it would certianly be appropriate to have main stub categories for the huge regions of China. We have {{Tibet-stub}} after all!!

Dr B? I'm not saying I'm opposed to them but having had a look through China stubs (what a mess) I will add tidying up to my to do list. It seems that these categories would be subcats of Category:People's Republic of China stubs not Category:China stubs and that a number of the articles can easily be moved into other appropiate categories (does an article on the Beijing Olympics belong in a PRC-sport- cat or a Beijing- cat) Waacstats (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you see now what I mean about it being in a mess? It needs work and organization I think. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:United States history stubs[edit]

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.
Over 700 articles. I propose subdividing by state.

I think that's all (I count 50.)Gosox5555 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that splitting by state is the best way togo with this, maybe a split by period (also taking out all the -bio-, -geo- and -struct- stubs would help). Waacstats (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I agree, I don't think it is necessary given that some history predates the existence of actual states and I do't see an overwhelming amount of stubs for each state. On average it works out as 14 articles per state. History would best be dealt with my time period. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must say I agree - this isn't the best way to split this. A large number of US history stubs will almost certainly relate to the history of the country overall, rather than any specific state. If i were going to split them, I'd go by historical period (we already have a pre-Columbian stub, for instance). A US-20thcentury-history-stub, US-19thcentury-history-stub, and US-18thcentury-history-stub might be more useful. It's also worth noting that if we do go with a state-by-state split, many of the proposed names are incorrect - we use CamelCase for stub templates - with no spaces in state names. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. By century in the US and you have my support. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:Brazil geography stubs[edit]

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 1700 articles, recently flooded with river articles, in process of adding state templates (see last months proposals) 4 are already over 60, propose

more will surely follow. Waacstats (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Support, at least the community didn't propose to nuke those too! Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:King County, Washington geography stubs[edit]

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 last US state I am splitting, atleast for a while 9though more counties may follow). Already has upmerged template with 60+ articles (mainly on seattle). Speedy? Anyone know of any regions we can use to upmerge the others (same goes for Oregon, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri)? Waacstats (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that Category:Kitsap County, Washington geography stubs, template has 60 aticles. Waacstats (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Virginia geography stubs[edit]

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 with more than 60 articles propose relevant category Category:Westmoreland County, Virginia geography stubs

  • Speedy support per nom - Waacstats, no? Grutness...wha? 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering, I thought Virginia's abbreviation (on the templates) is VA not VI ??? or my US state abbreviations is not that good :)? --impactF= 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was me, a bit rushed on the proposal. And yes Impact having loked into it Virginia is VA not VI I copied the pattern that already existed so now we need someone/some bot to go through and change 100+ templates and edit 1000+ articles then delete 100+ redirects. Since Alai is no longer here anyone know of a bot that could do this? Waacstats (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame about Alai. Support anyway per nom Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Composer templates for Europe[edit]

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.
Given the major significance of composers in Europe I think we should create composer templates by country. They can be upmerged into music biogrpahy stubs until viable of course.

I propose:

Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have Category:European composer stubs I think this can be approved, even speedied. Waacstats (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Create remaining templates for European scientists[edit]

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 noticed a lot of templates missing like {{Slovenia-scientist-stub}}, {{Croatia-scientist-stub}} etc. Both counties have a great number of notable scientists, so I'd recommend creating templates for all. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was supposed to happen with te creation of the cat (Especially as we have no {{Europe-scientist-stub}} so can be speedied, if that wasn't the case then tis is surely an S1 speedy. Waacstats (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split Category:German politician stubs by party[edit]

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.
1300+, many thousands will be added in coming weeks too. Split by main party and upmerge the others. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I'd help but I've still got Four overized geo cats to sort. Waacstats (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy {{Germany-SPD-politician-stub}} and Category:Social Democratic Party of Germany politician stubs[edit]

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.
Several hundred and counting. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Prehistoric even-toed ungulate stubs/{{paleo-eventoedungulate-stub}}[edit]

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 intersection between overpopulated Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs and the Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs category. At least 95 as of now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, not sure about the naming though, this is correct Waacs? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming here follows the same pattern as Category:Prehistoric mammal stubs/{{paleo-mammal-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nature categories aren't my area of expertise here but this looks OK to me. Waacstats (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Allegheny County, Pennsylvania geography stubs[edit]

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 passed 60, others may follow. Waacstats (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Support Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support- this would appear to be speedy S1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Austria-composer-stub}}[edit]

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.
Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Waacstats (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{US-violinist-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was create.
I think this may also be viable for its own category. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support have been looking at this myself. Category iff this reaches 60. Waacstats (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conductor templates for Europe[edit]

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.
Given the major significance of conductors and orchestral music in mainland Europe I think we should create conductor templates by country. They can be upmerged into music biogrpahy stubs.

I propose:

We currently have 541 stubs and many hundreds needing transwikiying so one can imagine that some of these ar elikely to be viable for their own categories too. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no individual country reaches 60, Support and it may be worth a Category:European conductor stubs if we're going to have these templates. Waacstats (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given time I expect the majority of them to be viable for their own categories but Eureopan conductor stubs will certainly be the start, Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support creating the templates above and Category:European conductor stubs - both for upmereging templates until there are enough stubs in the relevant category, and as parent categor for the stub categories once there are enough subs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been all the way through Category:Conductor stubs and those templates above that are still red would have 0 articles so I have not yet created them. Waacstats (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Croatia-cuisine-stub}}[edit]

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 also nearing 60. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give the number of articles we have and vastness of the topic I also propose the following:

Not so sure on these, the two european countries that alreadyhave categories are severley undersized and the fact the parent is only around 400, I think we may be better waiting till this gets a bit bigger and continueing with splitting indvidual countries out. On saying that this is a week oppose and am open to having my mind changed (through discussion or bribery)Waacstats (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm I see your point, I was just looking at Category:Croatian cuisine and seeing how many articles are not even stub tagged and sorted. There are likely to be a much greater number than 400 stubs. For example Hladetina. Best way is to look at the actual categories, the croatian one is practically viable I' am certain there are way more than 400 stubs. Just browse through the European cuisine categories and sub categories by country. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think many of these should be created - especially the larger countries like Sweden and France. Others like Malta, might not have enough stubs. - AKeen (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Belarus-university-stub}}[edit]

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.
And any other European country except the micro states. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support these and if the micro states have a couple of universities then i would go as far as supporting them, (I seem to recall that Vatican has a number of theological colleges (universities)). no reason to treat them different because they happen to be small. Waacstats (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


OK I propose the following templates then. God knows how many missing universities we have particularly in Eastern Europe.

Given existing by continent subcats, support just remember to upmerge the templates to existing categories, I've changed the Netherlands one.Waacstats (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though i'll nitpickingly add that Belize, Guyana, and Suriname are not technically Latin American, even though they are all in Central or South America :) BTW - do you mean Dominica-university-stub or DominicanRepublic-university-stub? The latter sounds more useful... Grutness...wha? 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:New South Wales river stubs[edit]

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.
{{NewSouthWales-river-stub}} from this list here. Over 300 New South Wales river articles were mechanically created by AlbertHerring (talk · contribs). While there has been discussion about the appropriateness of this at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, I think it is fairly safe to say that they are here for keeps. Given that, it is probably appropriate that they have their own stub template and category, especially as the {{NewSouthWales-geo-stub}} cat now has over 1,000 articles. The concern I have is that there does not seem to be a parent stub category for {{Australia-river-stub}} or even {{river-stub}}. Advice gratefully accepted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong oppose. As has been mentioned here frequently in the past, geo-stubs aren't split by landform. This is the reason we have no overall {{river-stub}}, {{lake-stub}}, {{town-stub}}, {{mountain-stub}}, etc. The way that NSW should be split is the same way all other geographical regions are split - by smaller area - in this case, by county or group of counties. I'd certainly support a split of that form. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How do I split long skinny landforms that cross LGA boundaries? Do I duplicate across every LGA it crosses? How do I define regional boundaries? In Australia, states are too large and LGAs are too small to be reasonably useful for the purpose of stub sorting. Regional boundaries, including {{Riverina-geo-stub}} (which on reflection I should have opposed the creation of) are artificial and have no formal standing whatsover. Using them will lead to battles over whether an area is in let's say "South West Slopes" or "Central West". Perhaps if you point me to where this discussion has been held previously (most of us don't dwell in the details of stub creation) it might be easier to understand why there is what seems to me to an illogical opposition to a reasonable proposal. Why geographical features are lumped in together and every family of arthropod is split is, I must confess, beyond me. If it is seen as reasonable to create a mountain of stubs on a topic (and it appears to be), then those stubs need to be sorted into some sort of rational order. Simply saying "geo-stubs aren't split by landform" as if that was handed down on stone tablets isn't really a useful answer. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to four districts, separate stub templates. Any more than that, use the NSW one. That's the way it's done with rivers worldwide. As to previous discussions on the topic, there are numerous - mouintain-stub was even at one time used as a specific example of "what types not to create" at WP:STUB. Perhaps some examples may indicate past discussions on the subject. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Seems as there are 300 stubs specifically on rivers and there appears to be people interested in expanding them I think we should do it. I wouldn't recommend doing this for everywhere obviously but sorting into districts would really take a lot of hard work sorting, especially as many rivers tracend multiple district barriers. Increasingly with a notable WP:Rivers and Wp:Mountains group there is a stronger case for developing specific categories. I know the convention is by geographical area and I fully support this but in areas whre there are a LOT of rivers like Brazil too etc I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have stub categories for rivers. We create new stub sub categories and templates everyday within a given genre yet we place every geography articles even though there may differ widely from waterfalls or rivers to towns in the same category. I support this in principle in the way that Grutness does but I think this would make sense in the current situation with New South Wales anyway. A lot of editors are not interested in towns for sintance but will gladly work on physical features such as rivers and lakes. This does NOT mean I want to Slovenia-lake-stub or anything all across wikipedia, where possible we should STICK to by area but in rare cases like this it makes more sense, especially as editors seem to want it to work through. Personally I don't mind so long as they develop as efficiently as possible. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of times we've had people jumping up and down saying "but there's a precedent!" (consider all the fuss we had with things like North Cyprus stubs and the like), I'd strongly - very very very strongly - ask you to reconsider this. hell, we don't even have an antarctica-glacier-stub - one of the times when it might seem perfectly logical to have one - since it would set an almighty precedent. The main concern is that we actively encourage the use of proposed and accepted types as precedents (e.g., in our speedying rules). Grutness...wha? 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd have supported an Antarctica glacier stub category. It would have seemed logical. That's my view.If you are willing to stub sort the New South Wales river stubs by county then I will not mind. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Ski areas and resorts stubs with template {{ski-resort-stub}}[edit]

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.
An intersection scan gives 171 articles and Category:Skiing stubs has already 249 articles. --Kslotte (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support - with the proviso that the stubs are double-tagged with the appropriate geo-stubs (e.g., Elk Mountain Ski Area should be marked with both this and {{pennsylvania-geo-stub}}). Grutness...wha? 00:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, should take that in consideration once I processes them with AWB. --Kslotte (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing 'Speedy', doesn't seem to fill the criteria. Anyway, no hurry with this. --Kslotte (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quick check that it exist articles that are stubs but not marked as stubs. I expect the amount of articles to increase once processed. --Kslotte (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Anything related to Piz Gloria my evil Swiss lair Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Verification of articles about their status as stubs is still needed. Also double-tagging with the appropriate geo-stubs needs verification. --Kslotte (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created {{ski-resort-stub}} with uppercase as first letter. Should lowercase be used when putting the template into articles? --Kslotte (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, it doesn't make any difference - the first letter of a template name is parsed as a capital whether it is one or not. In practice, it makes it easier for refinements later if common noun terms are left lower case; if we later need, say, a separate US-ski-resort-stub, then it will be a fraction less work to edit the articles if the "s" is already lower case. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason for put AWB to work on putting these to lowercase? I will probably get a bot account for AWB (auto save possible). --Kslotte (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the template and category - and was annoyed to notice that no-one pointed out the category name should have been singular. I've tidied up the wording of both template and category a little and moved the category to Category:Ski area and resort stubs. Hope you don't mind... Grutness...wha? 01:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NP, good work cleaning up small mistakes. It seems that I have been tired during the creation ;) --Kslotte (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Category:Karlovy Vary Region geography stubs and Category:Liberec Region geography stubs[edit]

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.
Should be now viable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that Category:Olomouc Region geography stubs which also has upmerged template over 60 currentlysitting in Category:Czech Republic geography stubs and you havea support. Waacstats (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Southern African Universities[edit]

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 68 public universities in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Most of these have their own wikipedia entryRdhenson (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have {{SouthAfrica-university-stub}} and other templates for countries outside of south africa. The convention is by country not institutional type. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (after ec) Are these all in South Africa, or in southern Africa generally? If they're in southern Africa but not all in one country, then it makes more sense to have them in the continent-wide category (i.e., Category:Africa university stubs),which - at 170-odd stubs, isn't really overfull. There'd be a very good case for upmerged country-specific templates, though (for example, {{Botswana-university-stub}} and {{Namibia-university-stub}}) all linking to the continent-wide category. If they're all in RSA, then there's already a single-country category for that. Grutness...wha? 10:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. The universities I was referring to are the universities in the 15 different countries of the SADC, which does include South Africa, but also 14 other countries! The reason I had proposed a separate stub is that this would be in line with economic/political developments - the African Union, NEPAD support a regional approach to issues like higher education and the SADC is the local regional bloc. However I take the point that Wikipedia is not currently set up like that. I see that South African Universities are (the only) sub category of Africa University stubs - is Grutness above suggesting that {{Botswana-university-stub}} and {{Namibia-university-stub}})etc all be made sub categories in the same way as South Africa? It seems a good idea to me and I would be happy to try and do this for the 14 SADC countries, not quite sure how to do it, and whether I would need permission? Maybe some one can advise?Rdhenson (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the creation of the Botswana and Namibia templates as with any others for Africa, I wasn't sure whether we had any made yet. In some African countries there are a notable number of universities and colleges. If there are over 60 stubs for the SADC countries I'd support a creation Category:Southern Africa university stubs using upmerged templates by country. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the SADC region may not exactly coincide with what we use for Southern Africa - we'll need to check that. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance - I am not quite sure what is meant by "upmerging templates"? From what I have seen most universities are linked to existing templates for their respective countries eg{{Botswana-university-stub}}{{Namibia-university-stub}} etc and many, but by no means all are also linked to {{Africa-university-stubs}}. Would "upmerging" the templates basically mean doing away with the individual country-university-stubs and replacing them with eg Southern Africa, East Africa, West Africa?Rdhenson (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerging means creating templates for all the countries, but having them feed into more general categories until such time as there are enough for a separate dedicated category (60 per normal stub-sorting requirements). Where there are enough stubs for separate country-level categories, they can be separately proposed (and would almost certainly be speediable) - if there aren't enough, they'd remain upmerged. So, for example, {{Angola-university-stub}} would categorise articles into Category:Angola stubs and either Category:Africa university stubs or a new Category:Southern Africa university stubs; if it ever has 60 stubs using it as a template, then a new Category:Angola university stubs would be created. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the proposals above. Maybe we should further it and create templates for the african and asian countries too? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Taiwanese singer stubs[edit]

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.
{{Taiwan-singer-stub}}, the number of stubs exceeded 60. - impactF= 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support per numerous precedants. Waacstats (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Pyrotechnics-stub}}[edit]

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.
For diferentiation between {{Explosive-stub}} which is a child of chemisty. Intended for fireworks and pyro used primarily for entertainment. Almost 60 articles in fireworks cat alone.DJSparky (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Support -sounds reasonable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support template but I'm not convinced that there are 60+ stubs. Catscan shows only 32 articles smaller than 2048 bytes, so I would say hold off on category till there are definitly 60 stub articles. Waacstats (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Slovenia-writer-stub}}[edit]

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.
Missing template Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and support for any other missing nation-writer-stub's in that cat. Waacstats (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Libyan sportspeople stubs[edit]

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.
4 upmerged templates give 60+ articles, but would leave the parent cat slightly undersized . Waacstats (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depebnding on what you mean by "slightly" that shouldn't be a problem - after all, it will have a subcat... Grutness...wha? 07:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Slightly" undersized = 55 articles if i've done my sums right. Waacstats (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Westerb Australia rail stub[edit]

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.

{{WesternAustralia-rail-stub}} - there are already template for other states - western australia got left off and I have created a page and then realised I needed to come here - the australian generics are confusing ans should be moved to the relevant states - and the absence of western australia is odd and should be fixed - rail features in western australia are as numerous as any other state of Australia SatuSuro 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support though the category needs renaming to Category:Western Australia rail stubs. Waacstats (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of Category:Oregon geography stubs[edit]

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 following two templates have passed 60 propose relevant cats. (these will take this off the oversized list and I still have a few counties to sort)

Waacstats (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Support. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Category:East Azarbaijan Province geography stubs[edit]

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.
Just over 60. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just wandering if this needs to be Category:East Azerbaijan Province stubs to disambiguate from the East of the Azerbaijan. Waacstats (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the spelling is Azar not Azer. Province is probably advisable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just incase some one makes the same mistake as me I think we do need the Province (capital P to match other Iranian provinces). Waacstats (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the article East Azarbaijan Province and permcat use "Province", so we probably should here, too. (support, BTW). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{earwig-stub}}[edit]

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.
Many other orders of insects have stub templates, {{ant-stub}}, {{beetle-stub}}, {{butterfly-stub}}, {{damselfly-stub}}, {{dragonfly-stub}}, et cetera, and Category:Earwigs and its subcats are growing at a relatively-fast pace. It already contains about 150 pages, and a good percentage of those are stubs (about 140 of them). Seeing how it is generally appropriate to use alternatives to {{insect-stub}}, and how Category:Insect stubs is getting larger and larger, I think that {{earwig-stub}}, and the associated cat, Category:Earwig stubs, is a good idea. The general rule would be that every article in Category:Earwigs (and subcats) with the template {{insect-stub}} already in it should be given the {{earwig-stub}} template. Is there any support for this idea? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me - assuming you're right about the numbers. If there are fewer than 60, then I support the template as an upmerged type - but if there are the 140 you suggest then a category as well makes sense. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Grutness. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Category:Swedish castle stubs, Category:Latvian castle stubs, Category:Austrian castle stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was create.
All well over 60 Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

given that Category:Castle stubs is over 1000 Support and if memory serves we have an outstsnding Category:European castle stubs with upmerged templates on the to-do list. Waacstats (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gosox5555 (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Aviation accident stubs[edit]

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 ran AWB over the air disaster categories this weekend, and think I caught all of the articles that were double-stubbed with {{aviation-stub}} and {{disaster-stub}}. A cursory check reveals somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 marked {{aviation-accident-stub}}, which should be enough for a new category, no? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation stubs needs a very good sort through and this looks like a good start to cutting it down. Waacstats (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of sort-through? Perhaps I can be of help with more AWB in the future? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, changing {{Aviation-stub}} to one of its subtypes wherever appropriate. At a quick glance, there seem to be numerous Aviation-bio-stubs, several aerospace-museum-stubs, and loads of aviation-term-stubs and aero-company-stubs in there, though I also support the initial nomination - there are a LOT of air accidents in there. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - one of these weekends I'll have a sort-through and see what I can fix up with AWB; I'm not sure I have the patience to do it manually. Already I see several airline articles double-stubbed with the aviation tag. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy {{Belgium-castle-stub}} and Category:Belgian castle stubs[edit]

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.
Well over 200 stubs. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per precedants. Waacstats (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sellsumerism[edit]

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 for a 'sellsumerism' stub to be created. It is a term used to describe the act of individuals becoming part time entrepreneurs and earning money through selling aspects of their daily lives. A 'sellsumer' earns money, for example, by renting out a parking space in their home driveway to a third party. The act is becoming more and more apparent during our global recession.

Please expand on this stub. --Christy Chung (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking for article creation WP:AFC , this page is for templates and categories for stubs. Waacstats (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Healthcare[edit]

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 believe a Healthcare stub needs to be created for several reasons. 1) The government is in the process of reforming our entire healthcare system. 2) The baby-boomer generation is getting older and older.

Several things here: 1) please sign your posts (use the tiled four times - i.e., ~~~~ to do this); 2) we already have a large range of existing stub types relating to healthcare; 3) which government?; 4) The age of the baby-boomer generation isn't really relevant - healthcare has existed for centuries - medicine is the third oldest profession. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Communications satellite stubs / {{comsat-stub}} {{communications-satellite-stub}}[edit]

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.
More than 90 stubs in Category:spacecraft stubs, and probably a few in Category:space stubs, with several being created most weeks. Proposed type is more specific, and will to some degree relieve pressure on Category:spacecraft stubs. --GW… 09:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support idea not to sure about the template name, there are a number of items lised on the disamig page Comsat. Waacstats (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is the only one listed on that page which is likely to require a stub category. The Asian committee doesn't seem to have any descendant articles (and if a stub template was needed COMSATS-stub would be more appropriate anyway), COMSAT has the possibility for a few descendants, but I am not currently aware of any stub categorisation by individual company. Anyway, most of the potential descendant articles are covered by corporation-stub and spacecraft-stub (the ones covered by spacecraft-stub are actually communications satellites, so would be covered by this proposal). If a stub were required for the band, it would use the full name, so that is not an issue, and again I don't think such a type is likely anyway. I don't think the UNIX feature even has its own article, let alone a requirement for a stub category. I'm fairly confident that communications satellites are the most common usage of "comsat" anyway. If there is still an issue then the name is associable, but I don't see any problems, and a shorter name would be preferable to a long one (the alternative would be Template:Communications-satellite-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). --GW… 10:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I wondered about the name myself. I think that - though it's a longer name - your suggested alternative is better. It also allows us to use the name satellite-stub as a basic naming element for other types if we need them for any reason. As for splits by company, the only place where I know of that being done is in entertainment, where we have things like BBC-stub. I doubt we;'d ever need to go that far for satellites - some other splitting axis like nationality might be a more logical split anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --GW… 11:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As above Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support template under longer name and category under proposed name. Waacstats (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five days, no objections. Created. --GW… 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Create medical biography templates by country[edit]

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.
Looking through Category:Medical biography stubs I think we should create new templates for most of the major countries and upmerge until viable. I'm currnetly working o Turkish physicians and we could certainly do with a {{Turkey-med-bio-stub}} etc as I gather the convention is not Turkey-physician-stub Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Category:Sri Lankan politician stubs[edit]

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.
Should be 60 stubs and counting. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, oh it already has been. Waacstats (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Category:Hardy Boys novel stubs and {{HardyBoys-novel-stub}}[edit]

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 over 200 stubs. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazed i am. Support the stub type I do. Is a similar type likely to be needed for Nancy Drew anytime soon? Grutness...wha? 01:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems size wise but we normally don't allow stubs for books from a series/singles by a band etc and this may open new floodgates that are better left shut. PS Nancy Drew seems to have 52 stub articles. Waacstats (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Drew LOL. I used to read the Hardy Boys when I was about 10 or 11 and looking back I can't believe how straight laced those guys were at 17 or 18 LOL. The Hardy Boys were like the A-team, they were always the best at everything they did and could get out of any situation using the most improbable methods! Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I propose {{NancyDrew-novel-stub}} then. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a Young Adult Mystery Novel stub instead of this one. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2009/July&oldid=1141871320"