Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alai (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 22 April 2006 (→Proposals, April 2006: Scottish organisation stubs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read #Proposing new stubs - procedure beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also propose anything else related to stubs in #Other stub-related discussions.

Proposing new stubs - procedure

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

^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

Proposals, April 2006

Category:Scottish organisation stubs

There's 74 articles in both Category:Scotland stubs (which is oversized), and in Category:UK organisation stubs. Alai 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splits from Category:Auto racing biography stubs

This is oversized, and from double-stubbing counts it seems that Category:Formula One people stubs would have 81 articles, and Category:NASCAR people stubs 113. Alai 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet stubs

Already existing are {{internet-stub}}, {{web-stub}}, and Category:WWW stubs. {{internet-stub}} currently dumps things into Category:WWW stubs, but has over 150 articles using it, which should be more than enough for its own category. Also, there are a number of people who would find the {{internet-stub}} => [[Category:WWW stubs]] connection somewhat jarring/incorrect. --Interiot 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{runningback-stub}}

Yet more sorting of {{amfootbio-stub}}. Now that the linemen are out this looks like the next one to go. Crystallina 04:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{Turkey-geo-stub}}

{{Turkey-geo-stub}} currently has 1,011 articles. I spoke with WikiProject Turkey, and they suggested splitting it along the lines of six regions set forth by the Turkish government (see Geography_of_Turkey). The specific provinces which fall into each region are listed in the Turkish Wikipedia, and I will list them on the stub pages. So, the stubs I propose (which I assume will need some formatting help) are:

Aelfthrytha 04:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here as long as they reach threshold... shouldn't that be Aegean? Grutness...wha? 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Geography_of_Turkey#Regions Agean is Aegean, and Turkey has 7 regions and the missing one is Southeast Anatolia, it can be SEAnatolia. Here is a list of proviences in regions tr:Türkiye'nin bölgeleri currently in tr:wiki but i'll add it to Geography of Turkey --Ugur Basak 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, both of you were right, I fixed it. That was why I said I'd need some formatting help. :) Aelfthrytha 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, naturally. However, I don't know if it is necessary to write the entire word "Turkey" all the time. Marmara, CAnatolia, SAnatolia, and SEAnatolia don't need them, since they can't be confused with other regions. As for the Aegean, Black Sea and Mediterranean, how about e.g. {{BlackSeaTR-geo-stub}} (parallel situation to {{LimburgNL-geo-stub}}). An alternative would be to lose a hyphen, e.g. {{BlackSeaTurkey-geo-stub}}, but my personal favourite is the TR version. Just a thought. Valentinian (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the TR version but I wasn't sure if it would have another unintended meaning.Aelfthrytha 06:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine one. Three of the abbreviations listed on TR refer to Turkey, and the meaning is pretty easy to guess. Regarding the Black Sea, no other country there starts with a T so, that should be pretty much in the clear. If we one day make a stub for the Greek part of the Aegean, I guess it would become {{AegeanGR-geo-stub}}. Re. the Mediterranean, the abbreviation needs to be TR (not "T" since we also have Tunesia.) Just my two cents. Valentinian (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking. Proposal amended accordingly. Aelfthrytha 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of {{royal-stub}}

{{royal-stub}} is over 850 stubs and that's excluding the Europeans! Besides, I really need an {{africa-royal-stub}} to sort out this material. Don't be fooled by the lack of royals in {{africa-bio-stub}} - the great majority of them (e.g. the Ethiopians and Zulus) - are stubbed as "royal" plus a national -bio-stub. While we're at it, I propose an {{asia-royal-stub}}. The African one is clearly above threshold, and I can't imagine the Asian one being a problem either given the number of monarchies in the Middle East, and the number of former countries in Asia. I suggest creating both templates first, followed by the actual categories when they reach threshold. Any new categories will become children of both Asian / African people stubs as well as {{royal-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would support creating {{MEast-royal-stub}} right away, feeding into such a category as is appropriate for threshhold purposes. Otherwise, support. --CComMack 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't done a serious count for the Middle East (and Asia), but I was considering that one as well. Given that we have 850 stubs outside of Europe, it seems a rather safe bet that the Middle East will be above threshold as well. (I know I haven't counted them, but I don't really feel I have the time.) However, the medieval Empires of Nicea and Trapezunt as well as Ancient Israel and the Crusader states must belong here as well, so the plot's thickening ...
    • Revised proposal I propose an {{africa-royal-stub}} {{asia-royal-stub}}, an {{africa-royal-stub}}, and a {{MEast-royal-stub}} (template first, category when 60). Valentinian (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't worry too much about Asia. Don't forget India and China :) Valentinian (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after edit conflict)Support these three (I take it you mean one of those "africa"s to be "asia" :). I don't think there'll be any trouble getting any of these to 60. I've done a quick tally-up of the first column on each page in the category - there were 75 African, 65 Middle Eastern, and 104 other Asian ones (give or take a handful, depending on where you draw the boundaries). These all look like they can be split now. There were also a lot of European ones still there, and one or two other regions (such as India/South Asia, and Assyria) may be close to splitting already. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copy-paste, isn't it wonderful? Hmm, I thought I'd sorted out (most) of the Europeans by now. When I start splitting, I'll go through the lot again. Assyria & Babylon have less than 40 stubs in total, so that ... If we add the Sassanid Empire, and Ancient Israel, perhaps? I haven't checked India yet, but some of the material there is simply stubbed with {{India-bio-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The European ones left seem to fall into three groups - either ancient ones (Sparta, Thrace, etc), Byzantium - which might be borderline Europe/Middle-East, and Moorish Cordoba, which might be borderline Europe/Africa. Also, no doubt a few new ones have arrived since you sorted them (same as I keep having to do with the geo-stubs). Leave Assyria in MEast for now, I think. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular biology stub

Some stubs fall between the two stools of biochemistry and genetics. Please see molecular biology for clarification.

{{biology-stub}} seems a bit general, although I can't find many stubs that would fall into a proposed {{mol-bio-stub}}, so perhaps it's not necessary.

Here's an example: yellow fluorescent protein (I wrote it, so I'm clearly biased...).

Would be glad to know what you think. HilJackson 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well mol-bio-stub wouldn't be a good name, to start with, since bio-stub is biographies (though we do have cellbio-stub...which probably needs renaming! I don't really see too many problems with simply giving these biochem-stub - although that is getting to be quite a big category now (just shy of 1000 stubs) and does need splitting. It's not an area I know much about, but given that molecular biology does overlap other disciplines, and that the only split of Biochem-stub so far has been enzymes, perhaps it would be better to split off things like protein-stub first. We do have cellbio-stub, as I said, and also genetics-stub, and I fear that a molecular biology stub might overlap these a bit too much. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian airport stubs

Category:Canadian airport stubs has over 1300 articles in it. I propose sorting by province/territory,

creating all templates now and categories as per threshhold. --CComMack 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-charity-stub}}

I thought of creating this stub when I came across the article on The Children's Society. Originally it had the {{uk-org-stub}} however this did not correctly identify the organisation. There are, of course, many thousands of charities in the British Isles (according to the Charity Commission and a number of them on Wikipedia have little information. I have proposed a template for the stub though this can be amended. --Totallycrazyman 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of the parents oversized? (Those would be {{charity-org-stub}} and uk-org stub as mentioned above. Crystallina 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded US-band-stubs

There are 200 bands in the United States rock musical group stubs category, and hundreds in the musical group stubs category still being sorted. Although there seem to be newer subcategories just put in, many bands are mislabeled under "rock" or nothing at all because they are part of artistic movements that counter traditional musical groupings. A "US-experimental-band-stub" or "US-noise-band-stub" (if not both) seems to be in order. Possible candidates include: List of noise musicians and List of experimental musicians. For more bands, see their subject pages: Noise music and Experimental music. Furthermore, a "US-folk-band-stub" category would be a lot more fitting than the subcategories that folk doesn't fit into as the US-band-stub category slowly fades. User:Mxdxcxnx/sig 20:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are actually > 700 bands in {{US-rock-band-stub}} but I agree it could be split. I would prefer "US-experimental-band-stub" to "US-noise-band-stub" as it covers more ground, but do you have at least 60 band stubs to populate it? {{US-band-stub}} (5 pages) itself is also in need of further genre splitting and potential candidates I can think of are "US-folk-band-stub" (as you metioned), "US-country-band-stub", "US-jazz-band-stub" and "US-orchestra-stub", but again, counts need to be done first before proposing. --Bruce1ee 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever decide on categories for these, they might be helpful for splitting {{2000s-rock-album-stub}} as well. Crystallina 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the lists alone (List of experimental musicians, List of noise musicians), the sheer amount of performers speaks for itself. Personally, I think that US-band-stubs for "experimental", "folk", "country", "jazz", and "orchestra" are overdue. The genres speak for themselves! There are well over sixty bands/orchestras that can fill these categories. Others up for proposal would be "rap" (puke), "noise", "blues", "gospel", "ska", and "reggae", if not others under subcategories if they are worthy enough. But the other ones, I would have expected those by now... the proof is blatant—US-band-stubs and US-rock-band-stubs are overflowing! User:Mxdxcxnx/sig 04:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it would help to take a glance at Category:Musical groups or Category:Musical_groups_by_genre|by genre. There are MANY other worthy sub-stubs. Hell, look at "heavy metal" as a genre! Others, like New Weird America have very few in its category as of right now, but the list is almost sixty! Albums would have to split accordingly by time period, too. It's a long road ahead. User:Mxdxcxnx/sig 04:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

{{indy-film-stub}}

While trying to attach a stub to the new Wassup Rockers article, I noticed there's no stub category for independent films. Given the number of new articles we're likely to see about this topic, I think it would be appropriate to create one.Bjones 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University stubs

Category:University stubs has 800 and a dozen geographical kids, some of which are undersized (Taiwan 24, NZ 39). I proposed {{Europe-university-stub}}, {{AsiaPacific-university-stub}}, {{NorthAmerica-university-stub}}, {{SouthAmerica-university-stub}}, {{Africa-university-stub}}. I hope Africa reaches 60. All others I am sure will. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 46 African ones just going by the names alone, so there's a very good chance of there being 60 overall. There may also be enough for a separate MEast-university-stub. New Zealand's close to 60 now, so I don't really think that should be upmerged, though that does leave the problem of the Oceania ones. But there will be some problem ones no matter what (Bermuda College, anyone?). I'd say yes to:

That should drain the main category quite nicely. I'd also suggest doing what we've done with other stubs and rescoping the strangely named ROK-university-stub to include both Koreas. Grutness...wha? 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Oceania-university-stub}} would then hold just basically Aus and NZ children and one or two colleges? Is that what we want? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bermuda is NorthAm. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how can you have MEast and Asia? Would Asia be the parent of ME? What about Far East then while we're at it? South Asia? Is it wise to split like that? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same way you can have MEast-struct-stub as a sunbcategory of Asia-struct-stub. There seem to be enough asian ones that to split off a region with plenty makes perfect sense. As to Oceania-university-stub, note that I didn't list it as a possible split. As it is there are more than 60 NZ university-stubs - the other oceania ones, along with any Central American and Carribean ones (and Bermuda College) can quite happily stay in the main Category:University stubs. In fact I'd go one stage further - we don't need a NorthAm-university-stub. A Canafda-university-stub would be a better split. That would give the following as a quite reasonable hierarchy:

  • University stubs
    • Africa University stubs
    • Asia University stubs
      • China university stubs
      • India university stubs
      • Japan university stubs
      • Korea university stubs
      • Middle East university stubs
    • Australia university stubs
    • Canada university stubs
    • Europe university stubs
      • France university stubs
      • Germany university stubs
      • United Kingdom university stubs
    • New Zealand university stubs
    • South America university stubs
    • United States university stubs

The main category would be left with generic stubs relating to tertiary education, along with any for places in Central America, the Caribbean, Mexico, Oceania, and any other small island nations not otherwise covered. Pretty muich the same way that struct-stub is split, really. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More German state geo stubs

Browsing through {{Germany-geo-stub}} I saw many stubs for Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. I guess they'll reach the 60 limit soon, if they haven't already, so I propose {{SaxonyAnhalt-geo-stub}}, {{Saxony-geo-stub}} and {{Mecklenburg-geo-stub}}. {{Brandenburg-geo-stub}} already exists, but directs to Category:Germany geography stubs. Markussep 13:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the templates, but not at present the categories until they actually have 60 stubs. As you note, the Brandenburg template already exists, but has a tiny number of stubs that include it. If the remaining 300ish in the parent category are systematically "templated" by the remaining seven states (assuming they're not strays from the existing nine), separating them out into distinct categories when they reach the threshold will be greatly facilitated. Alai 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the way to go, and so I've created the remaining templates (including the Bundesländer not listed above: {{Hamburg-geo-stub}}, {{Berlin-geo-stub}}, {{Bremen-geo-stub}}, {{Saarland-geo-stub}}). --Stemonitis 16:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scheisse! We're supposed to wait 7 days before creating new templates, not 7 minutes! It's written on the beginning on the page in big letters. I'm supporting Alai's suggestion, and I have no problem with most of the templates, but it should have been {{MecklenburgVorpommern-geo-stub}} to be consistent with other templates (ultra correct would have been {{MecklenburgWesternPommerania-geo-stub}} but that's almost unbearable). The purpose of this page is to *discuss* new templates so we can *avoid* fixing errors later. I propose an immediate rename of the Mecklenburg template. Valentinian (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (at any desired speed), but keep the just-created name as a redirect. It may not be strictly correct, but it's at least typeable. Alai 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have {{RhinelandPalatinate-geo-stub}} :) I've already listed it on WP:SFD, and I still believe we should stay consistent. I'll buy the redirect, if that'll make everyone happy. Valentinian (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to be hypercorrect, surely {{MecklenburgHitherPomerania-geo-stub}} Septentrionalis 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that term's a bit too archaic. Both the Bundesland's offical webpage [[2]] and the local tourism board [[3]] use "Western Pomerania". Valentinian (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About Mecklenburg-Vp: as long as the text it displays, and the category it directs to are correct, I don't really care what's the name of the template. Is there a good reason to change it? Markussep 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name should be consistent with the similar templates. "Mecklenburg" was the name of two former German duchies, not of the Bundesland. E.g. we have {{RhinelandPalatinate-geo-stub}} and {{NorthRhineWestphalia-geo-stub}} (not e.g. {{Pfalz-geo-stub}}.) Valentinian (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says somewhere else, "be bold", so I was. These buggers were going to be made sooner or later. This way we get all the discussion done in one place and at one time. It's not like it's a new idea to split the German geography stubs by Bundesland. The categories can be made as and when needed (and that need can be easily checked once all the articles are using the new templates), and everything's dead easy. No more need to bother this page with individual Bundesland split-offs, no more confusion as to which Länder get their own stub template... The exact wording of one of the Bundesländer may be up for debate, but since redirects are cheap, even that's not such a huge problem. --Stemonitis 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bhutan-stub}}

Most countries have a stub category yet this is none for Bhutan, seeing as many of the pages associated with it need to expanded, I'd suggest this would be a good stub category to create.--Horses In The Sky 12:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support template regardless, but keep upmerged to parent until such time as there's at least 60 such articles. Alai 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the template. The category should wait until we have 60 stubs. Valentinian (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support template - with the usual caveat that geo-stubs should be double-stubbed with asia-geo-stub. Bhutan's slowly moving towards having one of them too. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we create said {{Bhutan-geo-stub}} template (only) on the same basis? Alai 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{multi-star-stub}}

Being lazy, I don't really feel like going through all the star stubs to find variables and then doing it again for binary and multiple stars. So I propose {{mult-star-stub}} for binary and multiple star systems, of which there are MANY (easily more than 100) in {{star-stub}}. Then I'll sort out the variables and the multiples at the same time. A2Kafir 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me, though I'd think {{multi-star-stub}} might be a slightly better name. Alai 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a redirect from binary-star-stub might also make sense in case of a possible split later. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both comments; title altered to {{multi-star-stub}}. A2Kafir 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{compu-soft-stub}} splits

I've gone through the first 500 items in this category and I propose the following splits which could potentially be of suitable size:

{{database-software-stub}}

For databases and database-related items. 16 found so far. Examples: Adabas D, Alpha Five, Aqua Data Studio.

{{graphics-software-stub}}

For graphics-related software (2D/3D/vector etc). This would be related to the existing {{compu-graphics-stub}}. While that stub would be for concepts in graphics, this would be for specific software. 14 found so far. Examples: Corel PHOTO-PAINT, Adobe LiveMotion, Aladdin4D.

{{network-software-stub}}

This one is not as solid as the other two. It is intended to be an umbrella for all types of software that use a network such as web browsers/servers, FTP, IRC, file sharing, etc. Roughly 40 items found so far, so the potential to break away at least one page from the main category.

If this umbrella is deemed too wide a scope (or indeed, too vague) then the most common items within this group are web browser (9 stubs) and file sharing (9 stubs). These by themselves might be worth creating. --TheParanoidOne 11:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the next batch of geo-stubs

It's that time again... another tally-up and a handful more countries have reached the magical 65 mark. I'd like to propose:

A couple of these also tie in well with their non-geo equivalents, which were proposed a couple of days ago. As with them, the somalia-geo-stub would include all the areas internationally recognised as being in Somalia (i.e., including both Somaliland and Puntland). Grutness...wha? 05:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plus a proposed geo-stub change

I'd also like to propose a change to one rather ungainly geo-stub category: Category:British Overseas Territories geography stubs. At the moment it covers a rag-tag of colonies and territories across the planet, many of them double-stubbed with things like caribbean-geo-stub or oceania-geo-stub. If the British Indian Ocean Territories were moved into the EastA frica category (where Seychelles is, which they're often considered alongside), then the only ones not double-stubbed are all British South Atlantic Territories - South Georgia, the Falklands, Ascension, etc. I'd like to propose moving BIOT's stubs and renaming the category and template (the latter from BrOT-geo-stub to UK-Atlantic-geo-stub). It would lower the category's size to slightly below threshold (about 50), but it's a short term thing which would lead to better categorisation over all. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five days with no objections - I'll move this to SFD for any further comments... Grutness...wha? 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{dm-stub}} Disaster management

Disaster management including individual disasters as well as the underlying natural and man-made hazards. There are 100+ stubs. Sorry for not following protocol on this one, it is the first time I create a stub and I had some problems. --Drdan 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with both the name (not ver specific, see DM) and the scope (to specific), I feel that {{disaster-stub}} would be a better name. Eivindt@c 23:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Eivind. Say "dm" to me and I instantly think "dungeon master", then perhaps "DeutscheMark" or "Damgermouse". I wouldn't think disaster management in a million years. {{disaster-stub}} is a far better name. Unfortunately, it looks like you've gone against the instructions and created this anyway, making more work for us all... Grutness...wha? 01:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{auto-factory-stub}} or {{auto-plant-stub}}, Category:Automotive factory stubs

Approximately 72 articles to be sorted here. --Interiot 11:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • wouldn't it be better to start with a simple {{factory-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are very few articles in Category:Manufacturing plants that aren't in autos. I'm not very familiar with stub sorting, but are child stub cats never created before their parents? One example I know about is that {{autoracingbio-stub}} was created first, and had almost 1000 stubs in it when {{automobile-bio-stub}} managed to break 60. --Interiot 10:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are sometimes - though in the case of the motor racing one it was primarily as a split of sports-bio-stub, which was a very big category indeed. I've no objection to the autto-plant one, (though auto-factory-stub would be a better name if we wanted more factory stubs later), it was just an assumption (with no count-up) on my part that if there were lots of car factories there'd be a lot more factories in general. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further singer stubs

Adding regional singer stub templates has removed around 1,000 stubs from the main Category:Singer stubs (though one or two I'd not have tried to propose myself.) However, there's still around 1,500 left in the category. From having sifted through the lot, I'm very confident I could populate:

I'm not as sure about:

but they could probably just about squeeze over the threshold from just Category:Singer stubs without going into nation-bio stub categories. GeeJo (t) (c) • 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going with your confidence levels here: can I suggest template+category for the first three, and template only for the time being for the next four, to facilitate sorting, counting, and a probable later category split? I should bind a function key macro to this suggestion. :) Alai 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several Japan geo stubs

All of the other prefectures have stubs, but these don't. Potentials in parentheses following each potential stub.

All of these are associate with WikiProject Japan. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are too small to be "splittable" by the size criteria in the guidelines. I don't think the wikiproject consideration comes into play as it's not specific to any of these stub types. I suggest we create all of them as templates, as above, but only {{Kanagawa geography stubs}} and {{Miyagi geography stubs}} as categories. (That is, feeding the other templates back into the parent category until they grow above threshold.) This way, sorting on a uniform basis is made possible, and future splitting facilitated, without creating several undersized stub types. Alai 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eventually all stub categories should be rendered unnecessary, and for that reason, I think all of them should be created. As it is, they all dump into Category:Japan geography stubs, which has 185 stubs in it. I think you're splitting hairs with regard to the size of the potential categories. WPJ covers all Japan-related topics, and we have several people who work on location articles. It would be much more useful to these editors to have them sorted according to prefecture (the equivalent of a state in the US), allowing them to more easily focus on one prefecture and take care of the stubs found there. One of the goals of WPJ is to expand all Japan-related stubs so they are no longer stubs. As all 35 of the other prefectures in Japan each already have their own stub category, this only makes sense. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's far from splitting hairs. The lowered creation threshold for Wikiproject stub types is entirely to do with a stub type specific to that wikiproject, for locating all the stubs associated with them, not to give licence for any and all sub-types they wish to create beyond that. Just about every possible stub type has some sort of indirect relationship with a wikiproject, so if we go with the the "this argument has 30-odd stub types associated with it" argument, we're in effect saying that any stub type can be created with 30 articles (or even smaller, as some argue for "special pleading" for). I completely agree that all stub categories should be rendered unnecessary, eventually, but: eventually may be a long time. Most location stub types are growing, not contracting. Furthermore, this is exactly why we want to keep some sort of sane size threshold: if an existing geo-stub shrank to thirty (or even, to say three) articles due to all the other stubs having been expanded, it would only be logical to upmerge it back to the parent category, which is exactly analogous to what I'm suggesting here. 185 is by no means a large amount of stubs. Indeed, there's no motivation whatsoever for splitting the parent category further on size, the only possibly justification is uniformity in templating, i.e. to avoid the annoyance and confusion of the "unexpected redlink" when tagging by province, where a number of province-specific templates already exist. Alai 01:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Alai - 185 is a fairly small number of stubs to sort through for ones in a particular prefecture; the original category with several thousand stubs was definitely splittable, but is now down at a very reasonable size. As it is, several of the stubs suggested may soon reach a splittable size (two of them already have), but until they do, I don't see any need to do so. Consider an extreme analogy: currently several countries are marked with Oceania-geo-stub. one of them is Nauru, which has one stub. If categories were created for all the countries in this category, it would take no time for a dedicated editor to empty the category. So we'd have to delete it. Then what happens if another stub is created? Do we recreate the category 9only to have it deleted again), or leave it without a category (i.e., the situation as it is now)? And think of the editors. If someone is interested in editing some articles about Pacific island geography, what is easier to sort through, a category with 100 stubs, or 100 categories each with one stub? The situation is exactly the same here - we want the categories primarily to be a useful size for editors, which is why we have a threshold lower limit and a preferred upper limit to category sizes. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the category is nearly 4 pages long. (But is had been over 20 pages before we split it.) Conscious 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: 185 sounded low to me, but I didn't have the initiative to go check! (... or to add up the listed counts: d'oh). Splitting the two that are >= 60 will help significantly, but if we want it below 4 pages, then splitting the remainder by Regions of Japan is a feasible option. Category:Chubu geography stubs, Category:Kansai geography stubs and Category:Kyushu geography stubs all look immediately viable. Alai 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to withdraw this "request" for the moment. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Also, I object to splitting it by region as that's not as useful as splitting by prefecture, and will just create an unecessary level to the stub tree (especially when the prefectures each get enough stubs in them to be on their own). It will only cause confusion for people trying to sort the stubs as the stubless prefectures are scattered all over the country. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, as said above, a couple of these are definitely viable now, and given time the rest should be - probably fairly soon. I still think the Kanagawa and Miyagi ones are well worth proceeding with, and if someone is willing to keep track of when the others are splittable, then they should all gradually appear (anyone?). Grutness...wha? 03:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case (and in a addition to {{Kanagawa-geo-stub}} and {{Miyagi-geo-stub}}), I think {{Nara-geo-stub}} and {{Wakayama-geo-stub}} should be created as well, as they are both very close to the arbitrary threshhold of 60, having 59 and 57 respectively. I'll be happy to watch the rest of them, too, and create the stubs as soon as they reach 60. It will make our job easier. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 04:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair as far as I'm concerned - although as a courtesy it'd be good to mention here when the remaining splits are going to go ahead (pretty much like I do with the national splits - e.g., here). Unless there are any objections from the others here in the remainder of the one week discussion period, I don't think there'd be any problems with this. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the two "near enough" ones NJ mentions. Note that my by-region suggestion isn't meant suggest any upmerging, or to preclude splitting out further prefectures as they hit (or at least approximate) threshold. If all the templates are created, then regardless of category no part of the country is "stubless", so there should be no confusion. Alai 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per suggestion above, I'm posting here to let people know I've created the following stubs (and associated categories) from the list above. The number in parentheses indicates the number of stubs in that category, excluding the stub template itself:

Looks like I understated two of them by a bit...(^_^). I'll take care of the others as soon as they reach the appropriate threshhold. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 185 number quoted above is wrong -- that is just the number that showed up on the first page. All told, there are 520 now, and that is after the 300+ were sorted into the four new categories created above. Miyazaki Prefecture already has 62 stubs listed in those pages. Neier 00:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went with your number and created the stub and category for {{Miyazaki-geo-stub}}, but I couldn't find 62 stubs for it. Will you try to find the others? I've got around 50 or so. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an easy way to count the stubs in a given set of categories? I just manually counted them, so my counts at the top may be off, just as I found out with the stub counts for the four new stub cats. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I typed a prefecture name into google toolbar, and had it highlight it on the page. It's easy to count blocks of bright yellow.  :-) Neier 05:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One caveat, is that this count wouldn't include parks, mountains, or other geographical features which aren't named "XYZ, PREFECTURE" in wikipedia. Neier 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not with the toolserver down. --CComMack 05:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comments above, I created the remaining stubs and pointed them at their respective prefectures instead of to categories just for the stubs. Once they reach the limit, Ill create the individual stub cats and update the stub templates. Now I've got to plow through all the stubs in the main {{Japan-geo-stub}} cat and clear that monster out. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding a stub template into (only) a non-stub category isn't a good idea; it rather defeats the purpose of stub-tagging in the first place. I've added Category:Japan geography stubs to each of the new templates, where they should stay until such time as they hit said threshold for category creation. Alai 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should they be piped so that they are sorted (more or less) by Prefecture? Neier 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't like the prefecture category being added to just those 8 or 9 stubs, while the other 40 don't. Since stubs aren't usually categorized in "real" categories, I think the solution is to remove the prefecture category. But, it would be ok with me if the prefecture category was added to the others instead -- I just see a bit of inconsistency in the present situation. Neier 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly usual for stub articles to be in real categories, it'd just be problematic in many cases to add permanent categories to stub templates, since often there are more specific categories that'd be more appropriate. For example, Category:Fukui Prefecture doesn't have any articles for specific places within it in the main category, they're all sorted into Category:Cities in Fukui Prefecture, Category:Districts in Fukui Prefecture, etc. On the whole I'd favour removing the permanent category from the stub type, so that the more specific and appropriate category can be added by hand. Alai 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. Thanks for correcting that (both of you). --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US writer sub-stubs

Category:American writer stubs is gargantuan and has only one sub-cat, Category:American journalist stubs. I propose:

Her Pegship 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and also support creating non-US counterparts as feasible. Crystallina 03:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I suggest we at the very least create every (non-US) template as above, regardless of strict viability as a full-fledged type, to avoid "surprising results" for stub-sorters inferring the existence of the one, from that of the more specific type. BTW, {{US-nonfiction-stub}} does not seem a satisfactory names, surely that should be {{US-nonfiction-writer-stub}}, or at a stretch, {{US-nonfiction-bio-stub}}? Alai 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right! I have revised the code; in the interest of brevity, what about {{US-nf-writer-stub}}? Or is that too obscure? Her Pegship 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Assam-geo-stub}} and {{Punjab-geo-stub}}

The other day I began reviewing and sorting the unwieldly Indian geography stub category. These two appear to be the most common type of articles that do not fall into any specific geographic category, and creating them would help prune the list considerably. Danny 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Punjab is separated between India and Pakistan, I think {{Punjab-geo-stub}} would be a unfortunate name, maybe {{PunjabIndia-geo-stub}}? Eivindt@c 13:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps {{IndianPunjab-geo-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 09:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cameroon-stub}} and {{Somalia-stub}}

The first sixty stubs I found of each are listed at User:Carabinieri/Africa. I think we should include Somaliland in the Somalia-stub, since Somaliland isn't recognized but Somaliland-stub could be a future split.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good - see also the new geo-stub proposals further up the page. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bangladesh-bio-stub}}

There are over 20 bio-stubs just in the A's of the bangladesh-stubs, so this one is definately viable.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 09:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{buddhism-bio-stub}}

There are currently 400+ stubs in Category:Buddhism stubs, many of which are about people. - Nat Krause(Talk!)

  1. An Shihkao
  2. Aryadeva
  3. Asvaghosa
  4. Ayu Khandro
  5. Bajracharya
  6. Bhavaviveka
  7. Buddhaghosa
  8. Buddhapalita
  9. Buddhasvamin (monk)
  10. Candrakirti
  11. Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche
  12. Changchub Dorje
  13. Daegak Guksa
  14. Dao Xuan
  15. Daoji
  16. Dharmakirti
  17. Dharmarakshita
  18. Dhulikatta
  19. Dignāga
  20. Dromtonpa
  21. Drubwang Tsoknyi Rinpoche
  22. Dudjom Rinpoche
  23. Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche
  24. Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche
  25. Düsum Khyenpa

etc.

  • Tepid support; the parent isn't at all oversized, and I'm worried we'll see the usual rash of "this guy's a Buddhist!" tagging, but this does appear to meet the usual criteria. Alai 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{professional-org-stub}} and {{activist-org-stubs}}

Category:Organization stubs is in real need of more sub-categories. So here are two new proposed sub categories. I'm open to other name suggestions for these categories they are just the best names I could come up with to describe these broad groups.

{{professional-org-stub}} would correspond with Category:Professional associations.

{{activist-org-stubs}} could be a sub category of both Category:Activism stubs and Category:Organization stubs. The stubs below are are the obvious prospective stubs from among the Activism stubs, but Category:Organization stubs has many as well. mennonot 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{professional-org-stub}}

  1. American Academy of Forensic Sciences
  2. American Academy of Sleep Medicine
  3. American Association of Political Consultants
  4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
  5. American Astronautical Society
  6. American Bankers Association
  7. American Bladesmith Society
  8. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
  9. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
  10. American Choral Directors Association
  11. American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers
  12. American Society of Consultant Pharmacists
  13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  14. American College of Emergency Physicians
  15. British Association for Emergency Medicine
  16. National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians
  17. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
  18. Canadian Astronomical Society
  19. Canadian Council of Chief Executives
  20. Canadian Disc Jockey Association
  21. College of Healthcare Information Management Executives
  22. European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers
  23. International Imaging Industry Association
  24. Institute of Biological Engineers
  25. Institute of Management Accountants
  26. Institute of Nautical Archaeology
  27. International Union of Forest Research Organizations
  28. Guild of Carillonneurs in North America
  29. National Mining Association
  30. New York State Bar Association
  31. New York Software Industry Association
  32. New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective
  33. New Zealand Society of Actuaries
  34. New Zealand Speleological Society
  35. North American Meat Processors Association
  36. Optical Society of America
  37. Philadelphia Herpetological Society
  38. Polish Institute of Physical Chemistry
  39. The Law Society of Hong Kong
  40. World Psychiatric Association
  41. Young Moro Professionals Network (YMPN)

{{activist-org-stubs}}

  1. AARGH (Artists Against Rampant Government Homophobia)
  2. Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions
  3. Billboarding
  4. Bolzano project
  5. Boston University Biolabs
  6. Bus Riders Union
  7. Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors
  8. Christian CND
  9. Coalition for Peace through security
  10. Coalition for the Future American Worker
  11. Code Pink
  12. Committee of 100
  13. Common Dreams NewsCenter
  14. Community empowerment network
  15. Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France
  16. CorpWatch
  17. Corsica Nazione
  18. Council for Voluntary Service
  19. DC Anti-War Network
  20. Defense of marriage amendment
  21. Environmental Change Network
  22. European Disability Forum
  23. European Nuclear Disarmament Journal
  24. Fire by Night Organizing Committee
  25. Forum Waffenrecht
  26. German Eastern Marches Society
  27. Global Hunger Alliance
  28. Global Youth Action Network
  29. HUAR
  30. Hokkaido Utari Association
  31. International Falcon Movement
  32. International Federation of Liberal & Radical Youth
  33. International Fellowship of Reconciliation
  34. International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism
  35. International Organisation of Good Templars
  36. Iraq Peace Action Coalition
  37. Irish Land League
  38. Jobs with Justice
  39. Labour CND
  40. Lake Cowal
  41. Liberté Chérie
  42. Luca Casarini
  43. Manitoba Eco-Network
  44. March for Life
  45. Maritime Rights Movement
  46. Marriage Equality
  47. Mobilization for Global Justice
  48. Mobilized Youth
  49. NYC Ya Basta Collective
  50. National Assembly Against Racism
  51. National Congress of American Indians
  52. Nebraskans For Peace
  53. Nonviolence International
  54. Occupation Committee of the Sorbonne
  55. Open Constitutional Initiative
  56. Parker Sage
  57. Peace Brigades International
  58. SOS Racisme
  59. School Students Against War
  60. Scottish CND
  61. Sharing is Giving
  62. Small Arms Working Group
  63. TakingITGlobal
  64. Teamsters for a Democratic Union
  65. The World Movement for Nonviolence
  66. Troops Out Now Coalition
  67. Tute Bianche

{{arthropod-stub}}

There is already a stub for insects ({{insect-stub}}), one for arachnids ({{arachnid-stub}}) and one for crustaceans ({{crustacean-stub}}) but there is nothing for other Arthropods (centipedes, merostomata, pycnogonids, etc.). I have started up a WikiProject Arthropods, and I suggest the creation of a template for all arthropod organisms that don't have one yet. It would be much more precise than the {{invertebrate-stub}} that is used right now, and would allow participants of the WikiProject Arthropods to expand these stubs more easily. IronChris 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Merostomata
  2. Arizona desert centipede
  3. Chinese red-headed centipede
  4. Mukade
  5. Arthropod femur
  6. Arthropod coxa
  7. Arthropleura
  8. Naraoiidae
  9. Arthropleurida
  10. Arthropod tarsus
  11. Arthropod tibia
  12. Arthropod trochanter
  13. Panarthropoda
  14. Campodea
  15. Canadaspis
  16. Teneral
  17. Megalograptus
  18. Malphigian tubule system
  19. Japygidae
  20. Hepatopancreas
  21. Pauropoda
  22. Pauropodidae
  23. Symphyla
  24. Biramous
  25. Uniramous
  26. Dinocarida
  27. Dipluran
  28. Olenellus
  29. Paradoxides
  30. Geophilomorpha
  31. Proturan
  32. Atelocerata
  33. Dinocarida
  34. Stomatogastric nervous system
  35. Cephalothorax
  36. Ventral nerve cord
  37. Hemimetabolism
  38. Ametabolism
  39. Ecdysone
  40. Colossendeidae
  41. Hedgpethia
  42. Phacopina
  43. Dalmanitoidea
  44. Dalmanitidae
  45. Phacopoidea
  46. Phacopidae

Cyprus-geo-stub

I think we need a cyprus-geo-stub because cyprus-stub is too big. I want to know your opinion. If it is not necessary, write tell me why there is a template in cyprus-stub for asking for new stubs about cyprus. User:KRBN

My opinion:
  1. Cyprus-stub's category is still small - well below the level we'd normally start splitting a category up.
  2. There are less than 50 Cyprus geography stubs - country-specific geo-stubs are created once a country reaches 65 stubs.
  3. There is NOT a template in Category:Cyprus stubs asking for new stubs about Cyprus. The only template that is there is one saying that if you want to make one, you should propose it here first. As it is, we don't need and certainly did not ask for any new stub types relating to Cyprus.
  4. This is all academic, since you have already made the template - it's listed at WP:WSS/D, as you know. Proposing it now is far too late.
Grutness...wha? 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say upmerge, "pour encourager les autres". It's way premature as regards as sort of "necessity", and somewhat so as regards technical viability, and we'd have told KRBN so if he'd actually proposed it (and waited for a reply). One thing I'd strongly suggest is that we create any "missing" by-country -geo-stub templates, "pre-merged" into the corresponding <country>-stub; any entirely missing countries I'd further suggest we do something similar on a regional basis. This may prevent the occasional annoying redlink while sorting, and it may even lead to fewer of these creations-out-of-completism. (You never know.) Alai 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • hm. Sounds good in principle, and might help with some of the categories where there are only a couple of countries left (Central America and South America, for instance), but I'd be a bit wary of doing it for all countries. The idea of 30 templates leading into Category:Oceania geography stubs is a bit daunting, for instance. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo problems

We're having some problems with a couple of patriotic Kosovars editors removing SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub from articles related to the geography of Kosovo. There aren't nearly enough of these stubs to warrant a separate category (currently about 25), but what I'd like to propose is making a separate {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} that will feed into Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs. That way if and when there are enough stubs (or a decision on the region's future) we'll have everything ready. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support in the interests of peaceful wikiing. (wikying?) Her Pegship 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. There's a mini-mess here: there's a large {{Serbia-geo-stub}}, and a slightly undersized {{Montenegro-geo-stub}} (which could easily be upmerged): and a smattering of stubs in the parent, {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}}, which would on the face of it seem to be redundant. (Kosovo's certainly not in Montenegro...) Or is leaving them there just marginally less unacceptable for political reasons than tagging them with Serbia-geo-stub? Alai 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
those are the kosovo ones i sorted there - they kept on having serbia-stub removed from them so i thought serbiamontenegro might be a little less objectionalbe. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before you dised about the geo-stub you must know wat is that? I can not understend how you are sorted samthing wat you dont know wat is that? Only becose sombody in the past has prasentied Kosovo as a part of Serbia and Montenegro with out argumet. I think is better to let the two user PANONIA and Iliri_pz to disede that. This users have tried to make a gut work in this problem and they know the sitution and wat is better vor Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleace see this page:Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia--Hipi Zhdripi 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{canal-stub}}

Most of the articles listed on Canals of the United Kingdom. Currently they are tag with a horible mixture of loction stubs and geo stubs (and a few water transport stubs) which are not particularly helpful when it comes to attracting interested editors.Geni 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose in its current form. They currently should all be marked with various national or subnational geo-stubs (which are location stubs!) - UK ones, US ones, Netherlands ones, Italy ones, France ones... none should be marked with water-stub. Canals are split entirely by location. I'd weakly support a UK-canal-stub and US-canal-stub, but not a general canal-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit more borderline than the likes of "mountain-stub", at least. It also seems perfectly understandable that some of them have ended up under water transport, since they'd certainly be in that as a permanent category, and it's not instantly obviously that this is less primarily notable than their geographical location. Not sure I agree with the logic of opposing this, and supporting country-specific ones: it's not immediately clear that those are numerically viable, and if they are, it'll leave some out in the cold, and the country-specifics parentless (or with rather "remoter" parents, in practice). Tentative support for this, subject to numbers, and backlash about the inevitable (n+1)-stubbing, where n is doubtless already in many cases large. Alai 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll alter my initial comments - I'll support canal-stub on the proviso that all canals are double-stubbed with the relevant geo-stub as well. Grutness...wha? 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relivant geo-stub (singular) for say the Grand Western Canal?Or the Ketley Canal which isn't really a location any more (it isn't quite as x as the Croydon Canal but it isn't far off).Geni 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Western - two stubs, devon-geo-stub and somerset-geo-stub. Ketley, shropshire-geo-stub. Croydon, london-geo-stub. easy. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Like I said, (n+1)-stubbing, where n is... whatever it might happen to be. Ketley Canal still has a location, regardless of whether there's much there, there. Personally I don't think this is likely to be unmanageable, but admittedly "we've had complaints" in similar cases. Alai 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-footy-stub}} or {{US-soccer-stub}}

No ideas whatsoever about the likely population; consider this a follow-on from ideas floated at a (still unclosed, btw) SFD. Alai 17:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-planning-stub}}

Hi there, I propose a new stub category to cover the planning system of the United Kingdom as written up in Category:United Kingdom planning law There's 90 something articles 70 of which are stubs. --Mcginnly 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{film-org-stub}} and Category:Film organization stubs

To be tucked under both Category:Film archives and Category:Film organizations. Together there are enough film stubs that fall under either "film archives" or "film orgs" to exceed 100. Her Pegship 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Bangladesh-cricketbio-stub}} and {{Zimbabwe-cricketbio-stub}}

{{cricketbio-stub}} was split by nationality in February (discussion). But at that time, only eight of the ten Test-playing nations were given their own stubs/categories, because the proposer felt that the other two didn't have enough articles to merit it.

I would now like to propose that the remaining two countries, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, be split off too. Using Cat Scan (look for Category:Cricket biography stubs intersected with either Category:Bangladeshi cricketers or Category:Zimbabwean cricketers), I have determined that both would have over 70 articles. I think this should be plenty, especially as the categories "belong" to a WikiProject (WP:Cricket).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I entirely agree that 70 is plenty, so support these (though I don't see the WPJ argument as relevant here, as it's not specific to either class of stubs). Alai 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup - these two weren't big enough when I proposed the initial split, but definitely are now. It might also be worth looking at the number of UAE and Kenyan cricketers, since there were more from those two countries than I expected when I went through the categories at the last split. I agree with Alai about the WikiProject, too: although the threshold can probably be bent a bit for an "umbrella" WikiProject like yours, it would really need a specific Bangladeshi (or Zimbabwean) cricket project for it to be directly relevant. Grutness...wha? 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. Sorry, I misunderstood the WikiProject criterion. I don't think Kenya is ready yet (and I'm pretty sure that it is the 11th biggest country). We have 31 Kenyan cricketers, and that represents every Kenyan one-day international cricketer, so I don't think it will increase fast either. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • not that it will get it close to 60, but remember this is for any cricket biographies, not just the cricketers themselves - umpires, coaches, statisticians, broadcasters, administrators... Kenya would still hardly be pushing 40 though, let alone 60. It, UAE, Hong Kong, Scotland and the rest may have to wait in the main category for now. Grutness...wha? 12:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-journalist-stub}}

I haven't done a formal count, but a quick sample suggests that this would pass threshold by some distance, as well as reducing the load in Category:Journalist stubs. Possibly other nationalities would reach threshold as well (who was it who knew how to use that handy-dandy automated count thing? Alai?) Grutness...wha? 03:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest {{Euro-journalist-stub}}, {{SouthAm-journalist-stub}}, {{Oceania-journalist-stub}} and {{Asia-journalist-stub}} as well. Haven't done a proper count, but the Category is quite large. --Eivindt@c 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to get as much as possible from the national subcategories first. (Support UK-journalist, this one is long overdue.) Conscious 07:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought of it, counted it, and already proposed it! Just haven't been creating the UK ones, as I've been working on the US ones, as time permits. Count there, which IIRC is based on double-stubbing, is very conservative, CatScan finds 142 (usual CatScan caveats apply in both directions). Alai 14:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{media-company-stub}} / Category:Media company stubs

We have a Category:Film studio stubs, but there are stub articles about film distributors, cinema chains, and companies which do not produce films but provide services (such as effects, sound etc.) to the film industry. I haven't even checked the television categories yet. There are about 100 articles so far that would fit here. Her Pegship 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I know this isn't my usual objection, but... Is this possibly too widely scoped? As written, it would seem to take in all of the above, plus radio, newspapers, journals... (Not necessarily a serious problem, we can always resplit later.) Alai 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Company stubs is 13-14 pages yet has about 20 categories. I think we need less narrowly scoped categories. Crystallina 02:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objections to broader stub types for grouping purposes, and I've no problem as such with this one, but if it's obvious that a stub type is going to be many hundreds when created, then it's pretty much going to be pre-under-sorted, so it might be somewhat preferable to create several types at once (top-level grouping included). Alai 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a lot fewer stubs...OK, how about {{film-company-stub}}? Her Pegship 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Created {{film-company-stub}} / Category:Film company stubs and will populate. Her Pegship 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{compu-interface-stub}}

A place for the processes of a computer: what it does or offers or how it communicates with a human. Examples include: boot-up period, autofill and autotype, clickable image, and data acquisition (and that's just skimming the beginning of the bloated Category:Computer stubs). A rename may be in order, but this category is for all the gritty things of how a computer appears to work to the average user, without delving into code or anything.--HereToHelp 13:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This proposal has a familiar look. To recapitulate: if there are 60 stubs that would sensibly scoped within the permanent category Category:Human-computer interaction, then fair enough. However, from the examples above, two of which are most definitely not HCI topics, this looks in danger of being "compu-misc-stub", which I'd strongly oppose. Alai 19:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{Scotland-geo-stub}} / Category:Scotland geography stubs

I would like to propose that we split the very large (1010 articles) Scotland geo stub by the council areas of Scotland, which are used for local government. Three of the sub cats already exist:

A fourth one, which does not fit in with this proposed split, is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

There are 32 council areas, each with a very good, comprehensive set of Wikipedia categories to which these new stubs naturally belong: see Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland. Stub sorting will be dead easy (he says!) because some colleagues of mine over at the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board have been very busy categorising all those 1000 stubs to the relevant council area already, so even if the stub is missing the relevant council area info at the top (and they shouldn't be), it will be (he says!) at the foot of the article.

So, here are the 29 new stubs I propose:

I won't pretend that I have done a count, but 1010 divided by 29 only equals 35 stubs, so some of them are bound to be too small or borderline (the only obvious one I can see is Inverclyde). I don't know how you want to deal with that, but I suggest that if we have serious concerns about some being too small then we just leave them out at the moment, ie. lumped in to the main cat. Personally I would prefer that we just do this in a oner, but I know that some of us hate undersized stubs.

On the other hand, I would suggest that some are really needed, eg Aberdeenshire, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Edinburgh and Highland.

I am going to go and do some snouting about, so that 1010 figure may grow somewhat!--Mais oui! 04:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per my usual MO, I'm going to support all the templates, and the corresponding catgories as they pass 60. As per my comments on SFD, we can consider lumping into supra-UA categories once it's clear what those numbers look like. Alai 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support any that get beyond the 60-65 area. The Highland one certainly will. I suppose combining the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire ones is a bit too much of a stretch? Orkney and Shetland possibly could be combined as NorthernIsles-geo-stub, though. FWIW, if it's any help, you could probably rummage through the history of User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying - somewhere back there among the deletions will be a count of the Scotland geo-stubs from a few months ago, sorted by Lieutenancy. They should at least give a rough idea of how many stubs there might be by UA. ISTR Dumfries & Galloway is anothr that should easily reach target, BTW. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't thought of that. It sounds like a very elegant solution, and I support it. Re. your comments over at Deletions: I remember reading last week that under the next Boundary Commission the revised Scottish Parliament electoral regions are going to be made to correspond with the council area boundaries. I assume that that means that they do not do that at the moment, so what initially looked a very attractive method looks less so. Other "big" conglomerations are the Sheriffdoms, the Health Boards, Fire and Police (see Subdivisions of Scotland), but I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't be of much use (Police areas may be the most obvious and least complicated, I think, but apparently the government are itching to abolish several of them). Nope, as you say, let's create all the templates, and then see how logical we can make the categorisation. It will probably all be very obvious once we see the actual numbers. --Mais oui! 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had assumed they corresponded too: that's a fly in the ointment. But only small one, I think, since as Grutness says, accuracy may be a bit flakey anyway, due to people not knowing or caring what current boundary such-and-such a place lies within or outwith, and doesn't ultimately detract for the basic utility of sorting on a "near enough" basis: stub sorting is a transient and frangible business anyway. (Stop me if I start sounding too Karmafist-style WikiBuddhist here.) If we end up with a "Lothian" or a "Lanarkshire" or a "Highlands and Islands" that don't correspond to the actual ones, but to the conglomerated UAs, then first of all, the per-UA templates will still be accurate, and secondly, the category page can be glossed to cover this. ("The UAs of South Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire", etc.) If Mais is correct about the largest four or five, that'll deal with the immediate oversizedness, at least. Grutness, almost all of the larger subdivision scheme combine Aberdeen and -shire -- the problem is there's so many of 'em! Grampian electoral board and police force, and health board (along with Moray); and the North East Scotland parliamentary region along with what-one-might-be-inclined-to-call-Tayside. (This one is rather badly out of whack with the UAs at present, which is unfortunate.) As Oui says, the actual numbers and a wee bit of ruthless expediency will probably make this much clearer. Alai 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Marine-geo-stub}}(or similar)

Category:Oceanography stubs currently contains about 180 stubs - not enough to need splitting - but many of the stubs in it (about 60) actually relate to the geography of the sea - seas themselves, trenches, straits, etc. I think these ight be better served by a separate stub for marine geography. If you were to add the stubs relating to ocean currents to this new category, it would almost exactly halve the category, taking in about 85 of the stubs. The article on oceanography suggests that these items are covered by the sience of Physical oceanography, but I'm not sure that {{phys-ocean-stub}} would be the best name, hence my suggestion of a geo-stub nomenclature. It might also be worth changing ocean-stub to oceanography-stub at the same time. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-castle-stub}} / Category:Scottish castle stubs

This would be a subcat of Category:Scotland buildings and structures stubs. There are about 50-60 castle articles in that stub category already. There are more that are not stub tagged at present, such as Broughty Castle, Seafield Tower, Castle of Mey. Also, WikiProject Scottish Castles is now underway, and this stub cat would be a good way of organising progress. ::Supergolden:: 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not brilliantly happy with this, but it's only a very weak oppose. We've started to split England by region rather than structure type, so it would make sense to do the same with Scotland - but there are country-specific stadium stubs, so castles wouldn't be too strange a split. The WikiProject is a point in its favour too, but there are only 230 Scotland-struct-stubs in total, which is a fairly low total to need a split. I'm willing to be swayed, but is it too difficult to sort through the current category? Grutness...wha? 12:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I agree with G's concerns, but the WPJ tips this over into viability for me. As we haven't even gotten it together to split the Scottish location stubs by region, I'm not holding my breath for that happening with the structures. Alai 14:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we had not embarked on the truly bizarre method of starting to try to subdivide Scotland geo stubs by using the incomprehensibly obscure "lieutenancy areas" (what!?!), then we would be a lot further ahead than we are now. There is only one sane way to split the Scotland geo stubs, and that is by council areas. (This is veering off the subject, but that Inverness-shire geo stub is a total mess: misnamed - the lieutenancy is called "Inverness" not "Inverness-shire" - hopelessly confusing - "Inverness" may mean several things: a city, a committee area, a former district, a sheriffdom, a former county, a registration county, a lieutenancy area... all with totally different boundaries - underpopulated - only 13 articles therein - incorrect map at the main Scotland-geo-stub page - Skye and Raasay are not in the Inverness lieutenancy area - I could go on... .) I don't know what to think of this castles stub: I am inclined to Weak support it, with the proviso that we are sooner or later going to have to double-stub these types of articles with a struct stub by Scottish council areas. --Mais oui! 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that my comment has been taken as personal criticism. It is not: we all bear collective responsibility for the few, occasional errors which this Wikiproject takes. I definitely include myself in the criticism above, because I was part of the initial discussion. --Mais oui! 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I'm concerned, rest easy. I agree that the whole attempted scotland-split was a mess, but mainly because the articles themselves are marked with a mish-mash or lieutenancies, traditional counties, and the modern equivalents. As for Inverness-shire, I thought we'd deleted that category months back. if not, it needs to go to sfd, as it is indeed very misleading. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give strong support to this proposal. There are alledged to be over 3000 Scottish Castles. WikiProject Scottish Castles is being run to create a complete article for every one of these, therefore I feel a stub category is not an unreasonable request. It will provide a means of creating uniformity of short articles and is an excellent tool (when well used) for organising the Wikipedia. Slink pink 07:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt there's 3000 notable Scottish castles; and there certainly aren't 3000 stub articles for them, which is what's material for stub creation. (Well, not there being 3000, but the numbers of actual articles, that is.) Alai 08:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, with the help of the WPJ, these stubs wont be around when scotland-struct-stub gets split (he says hopefully!). I created the cat at Category:Scotland castle stubs, more in line with Category:Scotland buildings and structures stubs ::Supergolden:: 08:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what it was proposed as, though, and had it been, I'd have strongly objected to it as a category name as highly awkward (as is the existing type). Anyone object to changing it back? Alai 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{British Columbia-stub}} / Category:British Columbia biography stubs

Two Canadian provinces already have their own stubs – Quebec and Ontario. There are a large number of articles that are stubs that would fit best into a “British Columbia-stub” (but not into the BritishColumbia-geo-stub). I suspect a good number of vancouver-stub articles more properly belong under a “British Columbia-stub”. For example, Walter Stewart Owen more properly belongs under a “British Columbia” stub than a Vancouver stub, because the reasons for his notoriety are not limited to his years in Vancouver. Other articles suitable for a BC stub include (in no degree of importance or order) Provincial Court of British Columbia and Supreme Court of British Columbia, Bait Car Program, B.C. Pavilion, Pacific Scandal, British Columbia legislature police raids scandal, Bingogate, Medical Services Plan and Alberni Valley Heritage Network. Fluit 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A {{BritishColumbia-stub}} (as per naming guidelines there's no space) might be useful, especially since there is a Vancouver project with its own stubs - this would be a natural parent of it. Also you didn't mention NovaScotia-stub. BUT it wouldn't be for biographies. Biographies shouldn't be split by province - they're always split by nationality and profession, and if there are bio-stubs in the Ontario-stub, Quebec-stub, NovaScotia-stub and Vancouver-stub ccategories they should be removed from them. A BritishColumbia-stub for the other things you mention might well be useful though. Do you think you can scrounge together 60 stubs? Grutness...wha? 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the bio-stubs. Of course, this opens up a discussion about stubs for all 10 provinces (and territories). That's the way Canada works - if one kid, er, province gets it, they all have to get it! As for suitable articles, I'm sure there are plenty - it took me mere moments to find the examples above. Fluit 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub for Swiss Rail

We should create a Swiss railway stub such as follows: {{swiss railway-stub}} (unsigned comment by User:Booksworm.)

To keep the name consistent with the other similar stubs it would be {{Switzerland-rail-stub}}... Are there 60 (or close to 60) articles that can use this? Grutness...wha? 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Auto-bio-stub}} / Category:Auto biography stubs

There are several bios currently in Category:Automobile stubs (about 15), there are many stubs in Category:Automobile designers, some in Category:Automotive pioneers, and maybe a few from Automotive Hall of Fame. I haven't counted the unique ones up, but there should be at least 30, and this would be attached to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. --Interiot 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little light. While there's a degree of dispensation for Wikiprojects, I'm not sure how open-ended it should be as regards multiple stub-types per project. (Notorious examples spring to mind.) I'd support creating a template, only, merged to Category:Automobile stubs, to facilitate sorting these, though, and future splitting to a separate stub category when it hits a more-normally-splittable number. Alai 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, I went through and counted the unique ones listed above, and I count 72 articles currently. That should be enough for the template at least, if not a category. --Interiot 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me, support template and category. Alai 23:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female American Writers {{US-female-writer-stub}}

Since there are so many articles under the category American Writers I suggest that sub-categories relating to gender or place of birth should be created. Anonymous anonymous 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any other categories which are split by sex, and I'd be very reluctant to start doing so, considering that sex is usually not the most relevant aspect of any individual. Place of birth makes more sense, but could be complicated to determine. Just throwing ideas out, what about genre? Seems like it could lead to double stubs but might be one way to go.Aelfthrytha 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No bleedin' way. I strongly suggest we start with a split by medium, which is already underway under {{writer-stub}}, to a limited extent, alongside the by-nationality split. Novelists, playwrights, screenwriters, writers for TV, poets... Note that the journalists are already split out, though I'm unclear where newspaper columnists are currently sorted. And bloggers/online commentators? Alai 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Alai. We shouldn't sort according to race, nor to sex. Valentinian (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with alai. weve been splitting by nationality and field of writing - spliting by sex isnt a good idea. ISTR the parent main cats dont split by sex either. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; suggest sub-cat by field per all of the above. Newspaper columnists IRL are usually lumped in with journalists, and online writers could be "web authors" or some such. Her Pegship 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Australia-mil-stub}} or {{ADF-stub}}

Looking through the military and Australia stubs there are well over 60 articles that this can apply to. Either would be appropriate. ADF stands for Australian Defence Force.--Looper5920 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ireland-band-stub}} / Category:Irish musical group stubs

Another nationality split of {{band-stub}} – currently there are 61 Irish band stubs. --Bruce1ee 10:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{CAsia-hist-stub}} {{SEAsia-hist-stub}}

Each of these stubs has approximately 70 articles which could be marked with their stub, plus many others which currently have no stub tag (and which I will dig up later). Aelfthrytha 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support. It's probably worth checking whether any of the SAsia ones are simply Indian ons which haven't yet been sorted (India-hist-stub is still pretty new). Grutness...wha? 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read, SAsia-hist and SEAsia-hist are distinctly different entities. SAsia-hist, which was approved a while ago and created by me recently, covers Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and subjects which transcend the boundaries of India. SEAsia-hist would cover Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and the Phillippines. Aelfthrytha 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Support. Yup - I missed the E. And you missed Timor Leste :) Grutness...wha? 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I forgot to include Sri Lanka and the Maldives in my listing for SAsia-hist, and I didn't see you throwing any stones there... :P Aelfthrytha 17:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Touché :) Grutness...wha? 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom

I have noticed that many articles related to the computer game Doom are stubs. Will somebody make {{Doom-stub}} and put it on articles in Category:Doom. Category:Doom already has subcategories.

File:Doom-boxart.jpg This article about the computer game Doom is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

--75.9.240.125 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to right place. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. there are only 78 articles in Category:Doom in total so youre not likely to get close to 60 stubs from that. but i also see that one of its subcats is "doom stubs". so why was it made before being proposed? if it doesnt fill up soon it should be taken to sfd since its covered by other stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-entertainer-stub}} / Category:United States entertainer stubs

32 of these directly double-stubbed with both parents, probably quite a few more tucked away elsewhere. I'll scrouge through some other categories later. Will also hold several existing subcats, as with the entertainer hierarchy. Alai 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{NativeAmerican-stub}} / Category:Native American biography stubs

Or if you really want to stick with the pattern, {{NativeAmerica-bio-stub}}, which sounds pretty odd, or yet again, {{NorthAm-native-bio-stub}}, which sounds pretty long. According to CatScan, there's 119 under both US-bio- and Category:Native American. Some of these are probably basically ethnicity descriptors of modern-day people, but often it's their main notabily, as with the pioneers/settlers, below. There's also the issue of whether to scope this to include Canadian First Nation bios, or just those of the US. Alai 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unsure of this one - usually we group all issues relating to ethnic groups in a region with just XX-ethno-stub, though I unserstand how that could be a problem with the immigrant melting pot of North America. I wonder if it might be better to consider these people by field of endeavour rather than by ethnicity, or - if their field of endeavour is ethnicity-related politics or similar create a stub type on that basis (eg ethno-politician-stub, ethno-activist-stub, or similar). Otherwise we may be reopening the can of worms we just closed re: Kurd-politician-stub, etc. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, in the modern-day cases I'd have similar concerns. But for colonial and "Wild West" era types in Category:Native American leaders and {{Native American religious figures}} that's pretty much their notability (and "nationality", come to that), and sorting them under poli-bio-stub and reli-bio-stub isn't very useful. Alternatively, we could have a number of -hist-bio- types, split up by whatever combination of locations and time period makes the most sense. (US-West-hist-bio-stub?) Alai 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the existing {{NorthAm-native-stub}}, which has a similar scope... Mairi 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Botswana-stub}}

There are 68 stubs listed here; you could probably find more in an extensive search.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ethiopia-bio-stub}}

It appears to me that there's enough articles that would fall into this category to justify its creation; my rough count comes up with a minimum of 30, most of which are either Emperors or nobility. (Sorry about that; I've been making an honest effort to expand old stubs & avoid creating new ones.) -- llywrch 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. The usual minimum number for a new category is around 60 stubs, and the parent category {{Ethiopia-stub}} has only 60 articles. We should wait for that one to grow. Valentinian (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Support. I have populated the category so it is now up to 144 stubs. Almost all of the new additions are persons, so it is clearly above threshold. Valentinian (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-music-bio-stub}} / Category:United States music biography stubs

Don't have a count for this (I know, I'm slipping), for the time being, but there's at least the odd one in US-bio-stub, and doubtless many elsewhere. Would also act as a parent for existing "bottom-up" types. Alai 07:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already there! Conscious 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed a key qualifier! Alai 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American pioneers/historical biographies?

I've noticed a number of stubs in US-bio- that are best described as "generic pioneers": they may have done a spot of politicking, a bit of town-founding, a smidgen of business, a little bit of shooting up of the natives, etc, without being clear-cut US-pol-, US-business-, or US-mil- types. I don't have a count (uncharacteristically, I know), but I thought I'd float the idea of something like a {{US-pioneer-stub}}, or else a generic {{US-hist-bio-stub}}. Anyone have any thoughts, or more precise data? Alai 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it in line with the recent Australian stub type, I'd suggest US-settler-stub. Ir is that not a term used for the early US? Grutness...wha? 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Alai 06:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{costa-rica-geo-stub}}

Created a dozen new stubs in this area today that add to the numerous existing ones that are all going into CAmerica-geo-stub for now, but it would be useful to split this off as from experience so far the list is going to get a lot bigger before it starts to come under control, as very large chunks of the countries geography seems missing (half the volcanos, two thirds of the national parks, all but one of the rivers, etc. etc.) Sfnhltb 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things here. 1) A dozen new stubs would still only take costa rica to 50, according to the latest tally, which isn't yet enough. We automnatically propose andsplit off any country which reaches the 65 stub mark, and the tally is done every two weeks. So if Costa Rica reaches 65 stubs by mid April, then it will be proposed and dealt with then (Cuba is the only coutry which reached that mark at the last tally on March 28-29). 2) Even if it was split off, it would be CostaRica-geo-stub, not costa-rica-geo-stub. In other words, not now, but if it's growing as fast as you predict, it would make sense to split it fairly soon. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'm convinced. You said a dozen new stubs, not 79! But it should definitely be {{CostaRica-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{extreme-sports-stub}}

As far as I have searched I have found no existing stub templates for extreme sports, be it stubs on the sports themselves or biographical articles for practicioners. I really think we need one. --Ifrit 03:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an count of stubs that would go under the category? Aelfthrytha 03:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be very hard to give a count of that, thing is that there exist stub categories for extreme sports, but no extreme sports stub. So, essentially, a stub with a skateboarding topic gets {{Skateboarding-stub}}, while, for example a stub on Freestyle Motocross has to settle for a mere {{sport-stub}}. --Ifrit 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Algeria-stub}}

There are at least 82 stubs, which would fit into this stub category, which are listed here.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organic compound stubs

This cat has reached five pages. I have no clue along what lines we should split it. Is there a chemist in the house? - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 20:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, March 2006

{{Canada-business-bio-stub}}

A new stub for Canadian business biographies. It will be a child of Category:Canadian people stubs and Category:Business biography stubs. I haven't counted the stubs but the current category Category:Canadian businesspeople and its sub category has 287 articles.

--YUL89YYZ 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentatively support, CatScan finds about 84. This is a probable overestimate, as may not be a primary notability and thus "stub taggable" as such: someone might want to check a little more closely. Alai 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{Netherlands-geo-stub}}

About 550 articles. Two provinces already have their own stub cat: North Holland and Gelderland. I know that Utrecht has at least 75 stubs: all of the articles in Category:Towns in Utrecht have been created by me, and almost all of them are stubs. These articles have been largely generated automatically, including the stub-tag. When I start on the other provinces, they will also reach the limit quickly. I would like to at least create all of the templates in advance, so that my bot can generate the correct stub tag, and so the articles need not be re-stubbed.

I suggest:

Of these, at least Utrecht should have its own category from the start. The others may categorize into the main Dutch stub cat; sub-cats can then be created when I start working on those provinces.

Of the remaining two provinces: I'm not going to create articles about Friesland at this time (more difficult because some of my sources contain Frisian place names...); and Flevoland is too small for its own category. Eugene van der Pijll 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for the moment. I know you are creating a lot of articles, but the rules should be the same for everybody. You don't need to do the restubbing yourself, I'd be glad to help doing that, and I'm sure others feel the same way. Valentinian (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC) *Just for the record, I have no problem if you create a template for any province with more than 60 stubs. (I've not checked any figures but you mentioned Utrecht.) Valentinian (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the creation of all these templates, and such categories are over 60, only. Templates are cheap, and if someone is willing to sort 'em now, it saves work later. I'd be happy to say that anyway, for any per-region national geographic category with a 3-page listing, but if someone really is about to create a batch of articles (as opposed to the usual "... will eventually be useful") it's perverse to stop them. Look at it this way: if it'd be populated in a week (which I'm assuming it will be, if it's done automatically, right Eugene?), given that it takes a week to delete something anyway... We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot for a procedural nicety, as people are apt to suggest we do. Alai 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's this kind of timeframe we're talking about, I'll support the templates but not the actual categories before they've reached threshold. Valentinian (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll create the templates for a province when I start working on one. I don't expect to finish a province in a week, but I do expect to create at least in the order of 60 articles per province in such a time frame. (I uploaded ~45 articles on Zeeland in one evening a few days ago.) Eugene van der Pijll 23:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Valentinian (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anime-series-stub}}

Many stub articles are about the anime itself while some stubs are about stuff like Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!), a fictional computer. Seperating them may be beneficial. The computer is not a character so it is inaproporately tagged at the moment. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support, there are lots of them. What about manga series, are you planning to include them as well? Many articles start with "Foo is an anime and manga series..." or "Foo is a manga series..." Conscious 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for manga stub, too. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{baseball-catcher-stub}}

As previously noted by Crystallina {{baseballbio-stub}} is large and could benefit from new stub types for each position. There will easily be at least 60 entries for this new stub (as there would be for outfielders, and infielders as well). No Guru 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Splitting Category:United States university stubs

1247 in the category, no subcats. I say, instead of doing the northeast/southwest deal we see elsewhere, we simply make stub templates for the 50 states and then see which ones reach 30. Ideas? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30? 60, surely. I have no objections to creating all the templates, and I'd encourage same, but I suggest we do go with "the northeast/southwest deal we see elsewhere", not least as it's already proposed, approved, at least by default, and awaiting creation. Alai 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alai's right. Maybe tomorrow I'll create the stubs. A2Kafir 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you create the stubs, I'll get on the sorting. :) Aelfthrytha 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry abt that. Me too, I'll help with the sorting. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of these exist now: {{US-midwest-university-stub}}; {{US-northeast-university-stub}}; {{US-south-university-stub}}; {{US-west-university-stub}}. I've only sorted a few so far. A2Kafir 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that to save later re-sorting effort, state-by-state templates also be created? (But as redirects to, or duplicates of, the above, not with separate categories.) Alai 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just created {{Texas-university-stub}} as an experimental redirect to {{US-south-university-stub}}; it seems to work just fine. But what say others? A2Kafir 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support! Aelfthrytha 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it would probably have been beter to wait until wed worked out what was happening with {{UTexas-stub}} over at sfd! other than that it sounds like a good idea. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point -- unfortunate choice of place to start in that respect. Obviously don't depopulate the UTexas ones in favour of this, and possibly hold fire on the UT-not-at-Austin guys too. OTOH, I don't see any business pending in regards to the other 49 states... Alai 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One word of caution, I noticed that there were some law schools mixed into this stub cat, and people are sorting them futher. Actually, law schools have their own {{lawschool-stub}}. FYI. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-planning-law-stub}}

I propose a subdivision of the {{UK-law-stub}} to cover planning law Town and country planning in the United Kingdom
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 etc.etc. - it's a very large subject rather unrepresented at the moment but with a broad appeal for uk residents. --User:McginnlyUser talk:Mcginnly (Mcginnly 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "unrepresented" means "nowhere near 60 stubs at present"? If that's the case, oppose on those grounds. Alai 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been quite busy but you're right, not quite 60 stubs. Category-United Kingdom Planning Law currently has 53 articles, most of which are stubs. This week I'll be writing up the dozen or so Planning policy statements and Planning guidance notes so maybe you could review again in a week and let me know your thoughts. PS. is there a quick way to cross reference articles in a category with the number of stubs therein?

--User:McginnlyUser talk:Mcginnly--Mcginnly 09:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short of a database query, the best thing I'm aware of is CatScan. It lets you check for articles flagged as stubs, or that by content are likely stub candidates (though unfortunately not both at once). Alai 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've counted up (manually) and I think there's 61. --User:McginnlyUser talk:Mcginnly-- --Mcginnly 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Solareclipse-Astronomy-stub}}

I believe there is a very good potential for this kind of stub type. Since it can be filled with 50+ articles if only the solar eclispes of the past 100 years are covered. Solar eclipse has a list of exlipses and so far only two have articles which will change with my edits really soon. So in order to evade redundent cluter of the blanket astronomy-stub cat this may be wise. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solareclipse-stub would also work, but otherwise, go ahead. --Tone 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the size criteria are defined in terms of existing articles, not intention to create same. Oppose creation of a separate category until viable on size. If the template is retained, rename as per Tone. Alai 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know THAT. I just wanted comments before potentialy waisting my tiome creating tens of articles. Ill really be copying NASA data. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a stub type shouldn't be a porerequisite for actually making the articles. Creating the articles is primarily for Wikipedia and its readers' benefit, not for the stub sorters. Once it's clear that there are enough articles about this subject, then IU';m sure there'll be no problem with a stub type - but preferably not until then. As to the stub type itself, how about broadening it slightly and just making it {{eclipse-stub}}? That way it can include articles on lunar eclipses and possibly transit and occultations. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{eclipse-stub}} in principle for use as Grutness suggests, including transits and occultations (like {{crater-stub}} is used for any landform not on Earth). But I have yet to survey to see how many articles this one would catch at the moment. A2Kafir 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support {{eclipse-stub}}. and someones made us more work by making it first and asking questions later...off to sfd... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cuba-geo-stub}}

Oman might not quite be at 65 geo-stubs yet, but Cuba has finally made it - in fact a recent spurt of stub creation has taken this to 88. it's the only one to reach 65 with the latest geo-stub count, but several are very close (I expect that Latvia for one will get to threshold with the next tally). Grutness...wha? 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba's been proposed and discussed by our very own Grutness...wha? back on March 10 (see below). Propose we do it immediately. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I own Grutness, back off. :) and of course I agree with him. I mean who wouldnt? --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - it's two other cool cats that own me. I didn't actually propose it - I said it was very close and should be proposed if someone added an extra couple of stubs - which they did with a vengeance (in fact, an extra 25 stubs in the last two weeks). It can wait a couple more days :) Grutness...wha? 01:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Final tally 97. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Oman-geo-stub}}

I propose a new stub for Oman geographical articles because there are approximately 60 stubs which would fall into this category. Additionally, this will help to clear out the Middle East geo-stub category which is currently about 1/3 Oman-related stubs. Aelfthrytha 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. There are 37 - or were as of yesterday, which was the last time they were tallied (that's 16.5%, not 1/3). All geo-stubs for countries which have no separate stubs are tallied twice a month, and are automatically proposed when they reach the 65 mark. It's likely that Oman will be at that threshold soon, but it isn't yet. Oman is quite some way down the list - it isn't even the country with the largest number within the Middle East! (That is Lebanon with 47). or the second largest (UAE with 44). For a full list of how many geo-stubs exist for each country, see User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone must have been working overnight, as today there appear to be 53 (more if I include coastal bodies of water which could fall under Oman's geography). Aelfthrytha 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oops - you're right, there are 53. Still not enough, but closer (I did the count but forgot to update the figures on my page). UAE is now at 45, too, but Lebanon's still at 47. BTW - coincidentally, this was good timing, since I am most of the way through the latest count-up and I would have missed that! One country has reached 65, BTW... see above. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (added to 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

{{Finland-artist-stub}}

finnish artists, for example Lilyah. For information, finnish-writer already exists.

yes, it exists because there were a large number of stubs on finnish writers. It might be worth making a separate finland-artist-stub iff there are enough stubs for it - can you find 60 or so Finnish artist stubs? Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you search for "finnish singer" or "finnish actress" for example, there are plenty of them. there are also sculptors and painters that are categorized under the general biography stub. i think it's worth it.

well, show us there are enough - are there 60 stubs? And any chance you can actually sign your proposals? Grutness...wha? 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Singers are artistes aren't they? — Instantnood 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sicily-stub}}

I propose a stub for all new articles created as part of WikiProject Sicily. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable - as long as there are a good number of stubs that can take it (preferably 30 or more, since there's a wikiproject). Note thatthere may soon be a separate geo-stub for places in sicily (there are discussions ongoing about splitting up italy-geo-stub - see below). Grutness...wha? 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip - that actually fits in perfectly. There are over 600 Sicilian municipalities (it's the largest region in Italy), and seeing that most are still stubs in the Italian and Sicilian wikipedias, it is reasonable to assume they will be stubs here for a while. I guess we would use the {{Sicily-geo-stub}} for all the municipalities, and {{Sicily-stub}} for all other project related stubs - I see no problem getting to 30 such stubs very quickly. I'll leave a similar message below. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... as the instructions above say, you're meant to wait a week before creating the stub template. And you're meant to have it categorise articles in a stub category! I've fixed it up. Grutness...wha? 13:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal proposal, subdividing {{star-stub}} / Category:Star stubs

Geez, I hadn't looked at that for a while. Someone went nuts creating star pages! Anyway, I propose, as a start, the following new templates:

  • {{var-star-stub}} for variable stars (see all the ones with one or two letters, like "WW", starting their name? They're variables.)
  • {{star-cluster-stub}} (all the NGC and "open cluster" ones here, just to start)
  • Less certain: {{bright-star-stub}} (any star that starts with a Greek letter is generally one of the 20 or so brightest in the constellation in question, so is "bright" by star standards, but may be dim if you actually look for it)

Thoughts?A2Kafir 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable although I am afraid most of these articles will remain stubs. But sure, sorting them is always fine. --Tone 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite a simple radio telescope survey can do wonders and bring in data that can fill in an article out of being a stub. This is been regularly done in order to find planets and perhaps published. Its just that no one bothered to write articles about them yet. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support the first two - I'm not so keen on bright-star-stub. I actually suggested a while ago splitting stars by spectrum: O-star-stub, B-star-stub, A-star-stub, F-star-stub, G-star-stub, K-star-stub, M-star-stub, N-star-stub, which I still think might be a good way of doing things. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to split first on HR diagram regions, lumping together some of the giants if they're too small. The main sequence stars would doubtess need to be re-split by spectral type (as this is essentially equivalent to my earlier luminosity suggestion in this case, and the spectral notation is the more usual). Alai 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mused a little about that at the bottom of the earlier proposal. Why don't we start with {{var-star-stub}} and {{star-cluster-stub}} and see how far that gets us.....A2Kafir 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think we should sort out the clusters, and also the binaries, as obviously those are independent of any split by any of the various HR types. Less clear-cut we should do that with the variables, but not implausible, either. Alai 03:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Podcast-stub}}

There should be a Podcast related stub sorting thing, since podcasts are becoming more and more popular. dposse 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one's been proposed before and rejected, for one simple reason: 99.999% of podcasts are simply not noable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Stubs created on podcasts are almost always sent straight to AFD. The chances of having 60 notable podcasts in stub form any time soon is pretty remote. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stub type was also deleted in February. I don't think the podcasting situation has changed much in the last month or so. --TheParanoidOne 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Oil field stub}}

I propse a stub template for the hundreds of oil fields around the world. There are many stub entries on the List_of_oil_fields page and another 10 within the broader Energy stubs category. - Shiftchange 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And roughly how many is "many"? And template name would be {{oil-field-stub}}, or probably better still, {{oilfield-stub}}. Alai 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or possibly {{oilfield-stub}}. But there are currently only two that I know of marked with geo-stubs - and there are only 49 blue links in total on the oil fields list page - some of which are bound to be bigger than stubs. I seriously doubt there are anywhere near 60 stubs at present. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update - the geo-stub oilfields were moved to ocean-stub, which has a total of 11 oilfields. Grutness...wha? 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Alabama-stub}} Category:Alabama stubs

I propose a stub template for Alabama. - Patricknoddy 4:27pm March 27, 2006 (EST)

Any particular rationale? (Applied to immediately previous, too.) Alai 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub types are generally only made for US states if there's a WikiProject. is there a WP Alabama? If not, can you show there are 60 or more stubs on the state which aren't better served by existing stub templates? Grutness...wha? 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{School district-stub}} Category:School district stubs

I propose a stub template for school district stubs. We could split it up by country, state or province if it gets too big. - Patricknoddy 4:22pm March 27, 2006 (EST)

oppose. only the US really has articles for school districts and US schools and school districts are all already divided by state or region. none of them needs a further school-district-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Category:Norway geography stubs

Cat's about 1100 strong. I propose splitting it among the 5 Regions of Norway:

  • Nord-Norge
  • Østlandet - will be the lion's share
  • Sørlandet - may be undersized
  • Trøndelag - may be undersized
  • Vestlandet

Counties are 19 - too many. Nothing else makes much sense. Svalbard not part of any Region, and would be left in the mother Category. I did not count them, though - it's too monumental a task. I just suggest we create all 5, and sort them, and hopefully all will come out above the threshold. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support those over threshold, but note that 1100/19 is sufficiently close to threshold are to strongly suggest several will already be comfortably over, especially given that the distribution is clearly very skewed. Suggest templating by all 19 counties to facilitate later splitting. Alai 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A split into the five regions seems perfectly sensible (although I'd suggest splitting off the large one first to see what remains before splitting the potentially undersized ones). Given that the main category only has about 700 stubs I doubt there'd be any need to split into further counties (though the county containing Oslo might conceivably be a special case). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Østlandet should go first. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Oslo is not in any county, it's standalone, but are probably lots of geo-stubs within the city of Oslo. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's 1100, not 700. If Østlandet really is as relatively large as suspected, it seems like needless double-handling to create a new regional category that already has 2-3 pagefuls, then wait until that grows to 5, then re-sorting to perform the next level of split. Country templating avoids that entirely, without the need to create the categories prematurely. Alai 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A small word of caution. The government of Norway is considering a municipal reform in which some of the counties will be merged to larger units, or - based on the municipal reform currently being implemented in Denmark - replacing the counties altogether with a few regions. No decision has yet been taken, but I think we should avoid the regions at the moment. Neither their borders or number seem to be set in stone (that's the impression we get on this side of the border, in any case.) If the category is to be split at the moment, I'd suggest going with the counties (Alai's suggestion). Valentinian (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I suspect that just creating an {{Oslo-geo-stub}} might help matters out. It would be worth having as a separate item even if there were new regional boundaries. If that one's created, we can see where we stand from there. Can someone run a quick tally and see whether it would be worthwhile? Grutness...wha? 01:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if we do that, and the mother category will descend below 800, will we still be able to split it further once we agree on a way? I am not terribly sure how these guidelines work. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually once a split into subsections like this starts, there's far less objection to splitting other equally viable subsections - especially as (in a case like geographical regions) all of the stubs can theoretically be put into a subcategory. Grutness...wha? 03:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems at all with further splits of this category, but I just fear this is not the best time. I personally hate doing the same work twice :) Valentinian (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we "template-tag" by county, then so long as the current counties themselves aren't messed around with too rapidly (in particular, counties being split up, rather than merged), no re-sorting will be required, just recategorising the templates (some grinding noises and smoke from the servers at that point). The counties seem the more attractive option to me, partly as the regions don't seem to be a very significant or meaningful subdivision (even compared to the English ones, which is saying something). Alai 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think 5 regional stub is the best way to categorize them, but {{MidtNorge-stub}} would be a more logical division than {{Trøndelag-stub}}. Møre og Romsdal is usally considered a part of Midt Norge rather than Vestlandet, and placing Møre og Romsdal in {{Trøndelag}} could be rather "problematic". Eivindt@c 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another word of warning: not only has it now climbed to 1230 stubs (an average of 65 stubs per county), it is about to get a lot larger. I have started to translate the lake articles from no: and (a) they're almost all stubs, (b) there are loads of them. I've started at Nordland, which now has over 70 lake stubs alone, and will reach 130+ soon. Once these translations are done (and they are mainly automated), Aust-Agder will have 40+ new lake stubs, Buskerud will have 50+, Finnmark 70+, Hedmark and Hordaland 40+, Nord-Trøndelag 70+, Oppland 80+, Rogaland 30+, Sogn og Fjordane 40+, Sør-Trøndelag 50+, Telemark 70+ and Troms 30+. That's going to be on top of all the non-lake stubs that already exist. Ironically, the county that will be least affected by the lakes is Oslo! So, Aust-Agder, Buskerud, Finnmark, Hedmark, Hordaland, Nord-Trøndelag, Oppland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sør-Trøndelag and Telemark will be dead-certs soon from the lakes boost (with Rogaland and Troms looking pretty hot too, I suspect that they already reach the threshold but it's very hard to sift through because so many Norwegian geo articles in general haven't been categorized by locality) and Nordland is all ready for a Nordland-geo-stub category now: it's definitely not just Oslo that has enough. I'd argue in favour of at least creating stub templates for all 19 counties now too. If we wait until 700+ lake stubs have been added, it's just going to make sorting through them even more arduous. TheGrappler 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. There was no particular reason not to do this in the first instance, and if not doing so is going to mean that much unnecessary double-handling, it should be done ASAP. Alai 14:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. Precedence is established from the similar Dutch material; templates for the counties can be created now and the categories when they reach threshold. Is this acceptable?Valentinian (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about names?

1. Østfold - {{Østfold-geo-stub}} 2. Akershus - {{Akershus-geo-stub}} 3. City and county of Oslo - {{Oslo-geo-stub}} 4. Hedmark - {{Hedmark-geo-stub}} 5. Oppland – {{Oppland-geo-stub}} 6. Buskerud – {{Buskerud-geo-stub}} 7. Vestfold – {{Vestfold-geo-stub}} 8. Telemark – {{Telemark-geo-stub}} 9. Aust-Agder – {{AustAgder-geo-stub}} or {{Aust-Agder-geo-stub}}? 10. Vest-Agder – {{VestAgder-geo-stub}} or {{Vest-Agder-geo-stub}}? 11. Rogaland – {{Rogaland-geo-stub}} 12. Hordaland – {{Hordaland-geo-stub}} 14. Sogn og Fjordane – {{SoF-geo-stub}} or {{Sogn-og-Fjordane-geo-stub}} 15. Møre og Romsdal – {{MoR-geo-stub}} or {{Møre-og-Romsdal-geo-stub}} 16. Sør-Trøndelag – {{SørTrøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{Sør-Trøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{ST-geo-stub}} ? 17. Nord-Trøndelag – {{NordTrøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{Nord-Trøndelag-geo-stub}} or {{NT-geo-stub}} 18. Nordland – {{Nordland-geo-stub}} 19. Troms – {{Troms-geo-stub}} 20. Finnmark – {{Finnmark-geo-stub}} (for those who are really observant, it's true - there is no Norwegian county number 13! TheGrappler 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The versions with one fewer hyphen, please, in those cases; the abbreviations I'm not wild about -- what about {tl|SognFjordane-geo-stub}}, etc?; and all those ø's might be problematic, can we create redirects from some plausible "non-extended-latin" transliteration? (Which is the less obnxious, ø -> o, or ø -> oe?) Alai 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be consistent with similar stubs, it should be {{SognFjordane-geo-stub}} and {{MøreRomsdal-geo-stub}}, and the versions with one hypen less: e.g. {{AustAgder-geo-stub}} and {{SørTrøndelag-geo-stub}}. Both transliterations are pretty bad, but my first reaction is that any redirect should be to a "O" version. Valentinian (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I start making the templates, or does someone object? Eivindt@c 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please go for it, I think we are pretty much all agreed now! TheGrappler 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mozambique-stub}}

I've found 49 stubs related to Mozambique (see User:Carabinieri/Africa - not quite over the 60-threshhold. But: I only searched the categories directly related to Mozambique and Category:Africa stubs and I bet that if Category:African people stubs and the politicians were to be looked through we could find at least another 5 articles or so. Anyway, I think Africa is grossly underrepresented as far as stub categories go, so creating this cat to counter systematic bias would also make sense; although that technically isn't a reason, I guess.--Carabinieri 17:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support--I would imagine that most nations will have their own category eventually, unless they're the size of Nauru or something. A2Kafir 17:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed not a good reason: creating overly small categories of underrepresented areas is if anything more likely to assist them in languishing in obscurity. But 49 on a non-exhaustive search seems pretty close, so I support anyway. Alai 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the politicians, I counted seven of those on 11 March. I think it is pretty likey we'll be able to reach 60 stubs, so support. On a more general note, I agree with Alai: we should only add new templates, if they are actually viable. The list of templates is already pretty long. Valentinian (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support - itll make a parent for Mozambique-geo-stub too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{offensive-lineman-stub}} and {{defensive-lineman-stub}}

American football bios are still oversized. These seem like two of the larger categories. Crystallina 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit POV calling them offensive isn't it? :) (Support) Grutness...wha? 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Logical and seems highly likely to be viable. Suggest looking at the feasibility of {{wide-receiver-stub}} and {{runningback-stub}} (or bundling them together as {{offensive-back-stub}} if those are too small), and {{amfoot-secondary-stub}}. In that last case might be best to create separate templates for {{cornerback-stub}}, {{free-safety-stub}}, and {{strong-safety-stub}}, for the sake of better names, even if they all go into the one category. {{linebacker-stub}} I see is already a done deal, so that'd only leave the specialists (got to be a fair number of kickers and punters, though). Alai 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are {{quarterback-stub}} and {{widereceiver-stub}}. Support linemen. Conscious 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I was missing another existing one. My bad for not checking the category. Alai 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defensive backs could all be gathered in a new {{dback-stub}} or something (simpler than {{amfoot-secondary-stub}}). And, as a former lineman, I support the creation of the two lineman stub categories. A2Kafir 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Alloy-stub}} / Category:Alloy stubs

Alloys are presently in chemistry, industry, and material stubs, amongst others. Below are some candidates. Many alloys important to industry and history would be anticipated as future articles. I would make it a child of both {{inorganic-compound-stub}} and {{material-stub}}.

A2Kafir 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - support if you can find a couple of dozen more - 35 is still a bit light, but I suspect there are quite a few more. Grutness...wha? 05:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CuSil, Silumin, Birmabright, ZAMAK, Britannium, Anthracite iron, Gray iron, Malleable iron, Spiegeleisen, Niobium-titanium, Niobium-tin, Balco alloy, Alpaca silver, Auricupride, Marine grade stainless, Alloy 20, MKM steel, Tamahagane, Staballoy, AgInSbTe, GeSbTe, Superloy, ISO 428, Alacrite, Zalium, Didymium, Beryllide, Uranium rhodium germanium.
That's without trying very hard. Also, articles like amalgam about whole classes of alloys could easily spawn many stubs as the subject is fleshed out. A2Kafir 17:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support this one. Conscious 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Africa-hist-stub}} / Category:African history stubs

CatScan finds at least 500 African history stubs in Category:History of Africa and Category:Historical African monarchies. I'm pretty surprised no one has created this yet. Schzmo 15:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About time. I keep on adding this stub to things only to discover it doesn't exist. There are hundreds of articles, as you point out, that could take this template. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As no objections have been voiced for more than one week, it'll be created in a few minutes. Aelfthrytha 04:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Connecticut-stub}} / Category:Connecticut stubs

There are scores of Connecticut-related stubs, but as yet no stub template for Connecticut. CatScan finds 88 stubs under the Category:Connecticut alone. --Hyphen5 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've generally been shying away from state-stubs unless there is a specific wikiproject for the state - many of the stubs are probably classifiable in other ways. 88 is a lot, though... it may be worth having a separate template here. I'm not entirely convinced, but willing to be swayed. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using CatScan in the obvious way, searching Category:Connecticut to depth three or so, this is probably a sign there's not anything like enough for a new stub type, as it'll be counting geo-stubs (which already have a separate stub type), people, who we're trying hard not to create state-specific stubs for, and other article with non-primary associations with CT which would be unsuitable for being stubbed that way. (Equally CatScan will be missing uncategorised stubs, of course.) Merits a longer look at the list of candidates. Alai 05:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-reli-bio-stub}} / Category:United States Religious biography stubs

CatScan seems to find about 150 candidates for this, not already sorted into more specific stub types. Probably something of an overestimate, as it's using the ever-flakey permanent category hierarchy, so probably over-inclusive (though equally, possibly also an undercount due to cut-off of the category search, and uncategorised stubs). If someone wants to do a more exact count... Also useful to have this as a parent for some of the more specific US religion stub-types. Alai 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{compu-feature-stub}}/Category:Computer features

A place for the processes of a computer: what it does or offers. Examples include: boot-up period, autofill and autotype, clickable image, and data acquisition (and that's just skimming the beginning of the bloated Category:Computer stubs). A rename may be in order, but this category is for all the gritty things of how a computer appears to work to the average user, without delving into code or anything.--HereToHelp 23:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little open-ended: perilously close to compu-misc-stub. There's also no directly corresponding permanent category, which isn't a good sign. What about something like {{HCI-stub}} (or compu-interface-stub, perhaps), for which there is an existing permie, and would be a bit more tightly and clearly scoped, while still covering much of the above territory. Alai 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: Template:Compu-inter-stub (computer interface stub).--HereToHelp 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{nuclear-stub}} / Category:Nuclear physics stubs

I think this one would reduce the physics stub list for another 50-60 articles. While sorting condensed matter stubs I found plenty of articles for this category. At first, I considered putting them into particle-stub but it's not really the same thing. --Tone 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50-60's a little marginal to be "plenty". If this were created, then following the permanent categories, this would be a subtype of {{particle-stub}}, which is only (exactly) one page long. I think sorting them there would be better, until such time as this is more clearly splittable. I'd have no objection to creating a separate template to facilitate pre-sorting and counting. Alai 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reconsideration, it might also be called atom physics, atom-stub or something like that... The idea is to cover the topics an the atomic scale, so called small and medium energy physics. --Tone 22:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand it to cover nuclear physics and nuclear technology, something like {{nuclear-stub}} / Category:Nuclear physics and technology stubs. That would add at least 50-60 more articles. Schzmo 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that'd lead to cross-categorisation, as those would not be properly included in the physics hierarchy, which is what we're trying to slim down here. I'd be strongly against that. Alai 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I intended to put the technology articles in it also. But I think it is not ok to merge it with particles. --Tone 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I already started this, there could be one template for thermodynamics and statistical physics (one wold do since they are close related), maybe tdy-stub and one for astrophysics like astrophysics-stub and I think we have them all there so that only the very general articles keep the physics-stub template. --Tone 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems I can go ahead and create a template? In fact, there are more than 60 stubs for it but I have to go through and mark them all once I have the template. --Tone 20:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has raised objection to a template, and if there's more than 60, might as well go ahead and make it a full-fledged type. I'd still prefer you kept the nuke-tech stuff (that's not primarily about physics) separate, though. Alai 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I prefer it naming nuclear-stub for sake of simplicity. And I will let technology out, I will include just experimental methods connected. --Tone 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-comics-creator-stub}} / Category:United States comics creator stubs

Two oversized parents, and at least 145 candidate articles according to CatScan (before it conks out). This will probably be more helpful in splitting the comics parent than the US one, but every litte helps. Alai 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{lit-char-stub}} / Category:Fictional literary character stubs

fict-char-stub is 6 pages and getting larger. A preliminary count shows that this will probably hit threshold easily. The only problem is what to call it. Book-char-stub leaves out non-novel written material; literary character runs into a whole set of quibbles about what is considered literature or not... Crystallina 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, duplicate/redirected templates in the same category, to give unabiguous coverage, are an option. The proposed template name seems fine to me, though. Alai 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{scifi-char-stub}}, {{crime-char-stub}}, etc.? A2Kafir 21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If needed for a further split, perhaps. That runs the risk of falling into the same problem with book and film stubs of fuzzy genres. Crystallina 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-compu-bio-stub}} / Category:United States computer specialist stubs

CatScan finds 143 Americans with the compu-bio-stub, likely a vast undercount. Real agenda is to get such of these as dwell in US-bio- out of there, of course. Alai 06:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Valentinian (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musician stubs reorganizing

I really think Category:Musician stubs is a mess and needs some serious rework. A new wikiproject, [[Template:MUSART|Musical Artists]] WikiProject has been started for dealing with Musical artists, and I would propose that the managing of Category:Musician stubs and the related stub templates be at least partially delegated to that project.

If that's too extreme, I still think this category needs work. I'd propose the following structure, reminiscient of how Category:Albums is organized and, to a lesser extent, Category:Musicians itself:

    • Mixed feelings about the above. Firstly, "delegation" means... what, exactly? Stub-sorting isn't exactly an exclusive activity at present, so if this means "more people to do the sorting", then that's all well and good. But if it means that stub types not be proposed here, that they be created without regard to the stub naming conventions and other guidelines, such as the size criteria -- which is what it's often meant in the past, when stub types have been created "locally" -- then I'm entirely opposed.
    • The proposed category structure I'm in favour of; it's a logical extension of what's being done already, and the extra layer just makes things a bit tidier. Though it shouldn't be over-populated with a sudden rash of under-sized categories just for completeness, either.
    • The Big Template scheme I'm very leary of. We've had nothing but bad experiences in the past with parameterised stub templates, and this would be on an even larger scale than anything else. Editing the template might be a real server-crippler if it's used on thousands of musicians. Using it would be non-standard for stub-sorters, would required special instructions, and be highly error prone. And furthermore, it'd only "work" if for a given article, all three categories are available, and all pieces of data known, by no means always the case for nano-stubs. That's going to create an incentive to create a number of categories, as I mentioned above, "for completeness", even if they don't meet the normal stub-sorting criteria for creation, for size in particular. There's also problems where someone has more than one nationality, genre, or instrument, which I can testify is pretty common. And lastly, it also breaks down where a category has been split by both country and instrument, which has already occured, and will have to be done again if the categories aren't to remain oversized.
    • I strongly suggest that all new stub types be created with "normal" templates, in the first instance, and ordinarily sorted as such. If afterwards, people want to create additional templates, which I'd prefer use some clearly differentiated naming scheme (such as -stub-box, or something) to "consolidate" multiple stub templates into one were possible and appropriate, that'd be OK. Though equally, this could be done with unparametrised templates too, and probably less problematically. See also the scheme suggested earlier for "hidden" templates, to reduce multiple template clutter in a similar way. Alai 18:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great feedback, I really appreciate it, so let me address your points:
As far as "delegation" goes, I guess the idea is a little vauge. Basically I'm hoping that the new project will be made an active participant in related stub-sorting activites. The discussions/proposals will still happen here, so I guess when all's said and done, nothing really changes as far as that is concerned, we'll just put a note on our project page telling people to add this to their watch list so they can participate in relevant disucssions.
I see your point about under populated categories, though I'm not sure what exactly you consider under populated. However, what I take away from this is the following: If Category:Punk rock musician stubs, for instance, only has a handful of articles in it, then there's no need to start making sub-cats for New-wave punk rock musician stubs and Oi! Punk Rock musicians stubs and the like. However, if, for instance, Category:American musician stubs starts getting overpopulated, it could be further broken down by state, for instance.
On the subject of Categories, I've had mixed feelings in the past about inter mixing the three high level cats I listed above into a single category; e.g., Category:American blues guitarist stubs. But I can see the validity in it as long as the categories are consistently named, organized and used (except in the case of underpopulated categories, of course). I also don't think articles should be in Category:American blues guitarist stubs and also be in Category:American musician stubs, Category:Blues musician stubs, and Category:Guitarist stubs, for instance, which has been done in the past, because I think that defeats the purpose of having the sub cats.
I also see your point about the template, and that's fine by me, I just started having visions of stub-pages with 3 or more stub templates that end up taking up more space than the actual article. I was unable to find any discussion about "hidden" templates, but I'd be interested in hearing more about that. B.Mearns*, KSC 15:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this discussion, I've created a new proposal which I hope will make sense and that I think incorporates the ideas here:
Category:Musician stubs remains the top level for stubs with no additional information about the artist that can help categorize it more specifically. It has three subcategories:
  • Category:Musician stubs by nationality
  • Category:Musician stubs by genre
  • Category:Musician stubs by instrument
Each of these will have appropriate sub categories, for instance Category:American musician stubs under Musician stubs by nationality and Category:Blues musician stubs under Musician stubs by genre. Each of these sub-cats we'll call a first-order sub category, because they're based on one piece of information, either the nationality, the genre, or the instrument. Each such first-order cat will have a template, e.g., {{Australia-musician-stub}} for Category:Australian musician stubs.
Each first-order cat will be further subdivided by the other two first order information bits, so for example, each first-order category in Category:Musician stubs by nationality will be divided into Category:<nationality> musicians by genre and Category:<nationality> musicians by instrument. Inside these cats will be the second-order sub categories because they're based on two bits of information, for instance Category:American blues musicians is based on American (nationality) and blues (genre). This category would be a sub category of Category:American musicians by genre and of Category:Blues musicians by nationality.
Each of these will have their own second-order template which covers both pieces of information. I'm not usre if there's a defined naming convention for this yet, but if not, I would suggest keeping with the category name, i.e., {{<nationality>-<genre>-musician stub}}, {{<nationality>-<instrument>-musician stub}}, and {{<genre>-<instrument>-musician stub}}.
Finally, each second-order has a sub-cat which houses third order cats, so for instance Category:American blues musician stubs has a sub category called Category:American blues musician stubs by instrument, which houses all the third order sub cats. An example of a third order sub cat would be Category:American blues guitarist stubs which would have the following parent categories:
  • Category:American blues musician stubs by instrument
  • Category:American guitarist stubs by genre
  • Category:Blues guitarist stubs by nationality
And of course, each third-order cat has it's own template.
All articles should be placed as specifically as possible, and should NOT be repeated in parent categories of categories it's already in, so for instance if it's already in Category:American blues musician stubs, it should not be directly placed in either Category:American musician stubs or Category:Blues musician stubs.
B.Mearns*, KSC 15:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously makes sense for some local discussion of stub types within the scope of the wikiproject, and if WPJ participants do some/all of the actual sorting, no-one here is going to complain in the least. But I imagine we'd like to be kept "in the loop", for the reasons I mention. On which topic: size criteria is discussed on this page, and on WP:STUB. The short version would be, "should be at least 60 articles per stub type".
Can I suggest we start with specific instances? There must be many stub types that can be be created in the near term, analogously with those already split out (let's bear in mind that re-sorting of this category has already occurred, and the wisdom of the "one bite at a time" model), without the need to determine a grand overarching scheme in every respect in advance. Alai 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization you can see the project's scheme for sorting Category:Musicians and it's multitude of subcats. I'd sugges that the stubs follow the same structure. Generally speaking, the plan for our part of the project isn't to create the stubs, only to sort the ones already there. B.Mearns*, KSC 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

geometry-stub split

There are about 400 geometry stubs, I suggest to create a subcategory, e.g.

  • affine-geometry-stub (call it affgeom-stub or so if you want)
  • elementary-geometry-stub
  • plane-geometry-stub

Each of these could take a good part of the geom-stubs.— MFH:Talk 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

330, actually, so quite a way off from being an urgent split by any means. I'd want to be very sure these were both the most natural splits, and that they were over threshold. Alai 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian locations split

These are nearly at 1000, and several of the "natural" splits, such as {{Lombardy-stub}} {{Lombardy-geo-stub}}, will certainly be viable immediately. as there's 20 such regions, they won't all be, though. For the remainder, there's the option of using the "NUTS 1" Groups of Italian Regions, though these are (even!) less meaningful than the English NUTS 1 regions (discussed below), and the need doesn't seem great in this instance. So I'd suggest we create templates for all 20 regions on spec, and separate categories as they hit threshold (pick your favourite number). Alai 07:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go for - but someone else can tally them :) That would be {{Lombardy-geo-stub}}, BTW! Grutness...wha? 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I said? :) Alai 05:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Sardinia-geo-stub}} and {{Sicily-geo-stub}} are easy-enough divisions, I would think. A2Kafir 21:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note proposed sicily-stub above - there is a WP Sicily, so a Sicily-geo-stub - if it reaches threshold - would be a useful addition to the list. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Grutness' note, I've only just realised that this proposal was here, having just started up WikiProject Sicily. Given the above discussion and seeing that there are over 600 Sicilian municipalities (comuni) it makes a lot of sense to create {{Sicily-geo-stub}} for all the municipalities, and to use the one I proposed above {{Sicily-stub}} for all other project related stubs - I see no problem getting to 30 such stubs very quickly. Salutamu! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually supposed to wait a week before making the stub template and category (sigh)... I've tidied the category up. Grutness...wha? 12:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-film-bio-stub}} / Category:United States film biographical stubs

I think I nearly broke catscan with this one, as Category:American people is not exactly a small hierarchy... There's 302 article stub-tagged as {{film-bio-stub}}, and categorised as USians by some means or another. Both parents are oversized (one very, obviously). Would also itself serve as an additional parent for more specific types already split out (actors, directors). Almost feels old before its time, doesn't it? Alai 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support wholeheartedly. Her Pegship 04:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and done. Fill 'er up. Her Pegship 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{romance-film-stub}} / Category:Romance film stubs

I'm baaaaack.... This time requesting Romance film stubs as a sub-cat to Film stubs. Currently there are 179 articles that would fall into this category. As a side note, I know we'd rather be writing articles than sorting them, but until we get time, sorting into easily digestible groups is less likely to scare off stub-expander types. Her Pegship 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm a little less than keen on this one. "Romance film" is a bit of a vague concept overlapping a number of other genres. We also seem to have been mainly splitting by nationality IIRC. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yer right. Most of 'em can go into comedy or drama film stubs. Why am I making more work for myself?! I withdraw the nomination. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Her Pegship 06:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{tv-episode-stub}}

Over 80 of these in oversized {{tv-stub}}. Crystallina 04:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{playwright-stub}}

There are plenty of playwright articles scattered in the various (nation)-bio-stub, (nationality)-writer-stub, theatre-stub categories (all of which tend to accumulate excess articles). I have no doubts it'll meet threshold; a rough search for "playwright" and "stub" turned up hundreds of articles. If there are enough articles, it might even merit further subcategories by nationality. Crystallina 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It seems to redirect to {{writer-stub}}. I don't think that's quite optimal. Crystallina 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been noticing a lot of these while trying to do some residual sorting in the US-bios. Didn't know about the redirect, I've indeed been putting them into (US-)writer-stub (which I think is fairly logical; they are in the Category:Writers hierarchy, after all. Sounds very likely to be well-sized, and yes, I'd guess that {{US-playwright}} would be too. Alai 07:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history it apparently was deleted 6 months ago, but I think it's needed now. Crystallina 12:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

istr that it was combined with writer-stub partly becuase most writers write in more than one genre so seperate stubs for playwrights, novelists, poets, essayists, short story writers etc were going to lead to lots of double stubbing. also it made more sense to divide writers by nationality than what sort of thing they wrote. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but those by-nationality categories are getting large. US writers is at 12 pages. UK writers is at 5 and getting larger. The main writers category is at about 7 pages. Something is needed. Crystallina 04:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several somethings, even. Serious consideration should probably be given to something along the lines of {{novelist-stubs}}, {{screenwriter-stub}}, {{fact-writer-stub}}, and US- and UK- counterparts thereof. I've also happened across a number of editors, encyclopaedicists and the like, and hesitated to tag them with this (though they're in the Category:Writers category hierarchy. I'm assuming we're not using this for journalists, though these get marginal in places too (columnists rather than journos per se). And then there's bloggers. Alai 06:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think playwright-stub, novelist-stub, and poet-stub are all viable as separate stub types. Would take a bit of hunting down though, since they're in several different categories. And I'm sure a lot of them will have US or UK counterparts. Crystallina 00:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{relig-book-stub}} or {{relig-studies-book-stub}} / Category:Religious studies book stubs

I would like to propose a Religious studies book stubs category, as a sub-cat of Category:Non-fiction book stubs, which is getting full. There are currently at least 85 titles that would fall into this category. Her Pegship

Publishers Weekly magazine refers to the category of "religion" publishing (featured in the Feb. 13, 2006 issue). Religion book stub is succinct and simpler to remember. Also, not all of the books analyze or compare religions (some are one-sided), which "religious studies" seems to imply. GUllman 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to keep it consistant with the other names id suggest {{reli-book-stub}} too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{reli-book-stub}} works for me. Would that include religious texts as well, such as the Qur'an or the Bible? Her Pegship 04:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with {{reli-book-stub}}, as per BL's comment, and Category:Religious book stubs or Template:Book on religion stubs, in line with GUllman's thought, but trying to avoid the "Religion book" juxtaposition. (Though granted bookshops do have a "religion section", rather than a "religious section", in idiomatic usage. Alai 04:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sound great, either of the options...The wikiproject is slowly comming alive!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I to would go with {{reli-book-stub}}, as per BL's comment, and Category:Religious book stubs the other category is rather combersome and not in keeping with the others. I agree we have plenty of stubs and also a few more to be found amongst the "book-stub"s however I think more should work on the article content itself. Most appear to run the risk of being advertising stubs. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal for {{reli-book-stub}} and Category:Religion book stubs. Her Pegship 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the revised proposal as per BL. Valentinian (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may have hit a snag: there is no corresponding Category:Religion books for the articles to go into once they're no longer stubs. The closest thing in the religion categories is Category:Spiritual books, but I don't think that's what I'm talking about here. Any suggestions? Her Pegship 18:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious studies books and Category:Religious texts both exist - the latter is a parent of the former and has a slightly wider scope. So we have two possibilities - {{Reli-text-stub}} / Category:Religious text stubs and {{Reli-book-stub}} / Category:Religious studies book stubs. Given the arguments abovve, I'd say the "text" one is the better one to use. Note also that {{HeBible-stub}} is a natural child of the that one, but not the other one. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, hmmm, but what if it's No god but God (about Islam) or The Dance of the Dissident Daughter (about getting in touch with your sacred feminine)? It's not a religious text in the "holy-book" sense, like the Bible, but it's about a religious subject. Her Pegship 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Academic now :/, but FWIW the main categories have Religious studies books as a subcategory of Religious texts. That is, texts includes both religious studies books AND holy scripture - which is why it would have been a far more useful category to work from. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to BE BOLD! on this one and create {{reli-book-stub}} and Category:Religious studies book stubs, and start sorting. Wish me luck. Her Pegship 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{pol-book-stub}} / Category:Political book stubs

I would like to propose a Political book stubs category, as a sub-cat of Category:Non-fiction book stubs, which is getting full. There are currently at least 140 titles that would fall into this category. Her Pegship

May I suggest Politics book stubs to match the grammar of the four existing nonfiction book stub categories: Biography book stubs, Crime-book stubs, History book stubs and Science-book stubs. (The book itself is not "political" -- it can't even vote; it's about politics.) GUllman 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to keep it consistant with the other names id suggest {{poli-book-stub}} too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{poli-book-stub}} sounds great...(yes, I came from the wiki-project...Discount me if you must)Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with template name as BL, and category name as nomination. GUllman, I don't think those are good comparisons; I don't think anyone would suggest Category:Crime-books, for example. Alai 07:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more urgent plea to use the popularly used and grammatically correct form (i.e. Biography, Crime, History, Science ... Politics, Religion) that is already being used by other nonfiction book stubs, as well as the system of Categories and Portals. It says "Politics Portal" at the top of the latter page, so why not "politics book"?. GUllman 01:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not especially grammatical: "politics book" is using a noun attributively in a way that's rather unidiomatic. It's emphatically not used in the category system: Category:Politics books was renamed a year ago to Category:Political books. We should follow the actual permanent category here. Alai 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've thought about future category names, I'm afraid there is not one part of speech that fits all subjects. I agree that "medical book" is preferred to "medicine book", but surely you must agree that "economics book" is preferred to "economical book" (unless you bought the book on sale). GUllman 19:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with any name mentioned above but NOT "pol-book-stub", too cryptic. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{poli-book-stub}} as clearer. feydey 12:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal for {{poli-book-stub}} and Category:Politics book stubs. Her Pegship 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support revised proposal. Consistency is good. Valentinian (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just consulted a dictionary, and even though it grates on my American ear, Alai is right; "religious book", "political book" and even "economic book" are grammatically correct. "Religious book" and "political book" win against the alternatives in a Google race as well (although "economics book" is more popular than "economic book"). I concede. GUllman 01:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have guessed that latter one too, though if compelled to explain the rationale (much less "rule") for why one is more idiomatic than the other... I think one can only wave one's hands vaguely and say "custom and practice". Alai 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just waving my hands at the reason. Valentinian, Pegship and I seem to like putting the academic disipline before the word "book", especially to preserve a familiar longer phrase like "library and information science", and words without an adjectival form like "physics". We reserve the adjective to describe people and ideas who are religious or political; placing it before "book" sounds like you're anthropomorphising an insentient object. Also, according to the dictionary, "religious book" is sometimes synonymous with "holy book" such as the Bible or Koran, and a strange description for books about atheism. But if Categories use the adjectival form, then the writers of the articles must be comfortable with it. GUllman 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the permanent category name, I created {{poli-book-stub}} and Category:Political book stubs. Cheers, Her Pegship 06:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Belgium-band-stub}} / Category:Belgium musical group stubs

A further nationality split of {{band-stub}} – currently there are 62 Belgium band stubs. --Bruce1ee 11:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cnidarian-stub}}

Wikiproject Cnidarians would like a separate section of {{invertebrate-stub}} for cnidarians. A cnidarian stub section would be helpful to organize our efforts. The Category:Invertebrate stubs has already been broken into many other subcategories. There is a list of Cnidarian-related stubs at Wikiproject Cnidarians. Cryoboy 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At just over 200 stubs, I don't see the pressing need to split out Invertebrate stubs yet. All the other subcategories have at least 50 stubs, so splitting off 30-odd stubs won't really make much of an impact. --TheParanoidOne 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat marginal (one person wikiproject, and barely stubs), but technically OK. Given that we seem to be flagging considerably in any systematic attempt to clean up types that are much smaller, and much less legit, I don't see any real harm. Alai 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit marginal, but you asked nicely and you run a wikiproject, so precedence is established. I see no reason not to encourage your initiative. Support and happy editing. Valentinian (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
go for. My partner is jellyfish mad and she wouldn't forgive me if I nixed this one :) Grutness...wha? 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-mil-stub}}

This stub has gotten huge. Currently has a few hundred articles in it. Proposing to break some of these out by service. Individuals and units could easily be broken out. Very easy way to further refine the category. To keep things simple I propose using initials for each service except the US Army becasue their acronym is USA and that could get a bit confusing. WOuld look as follows: Army {{US-mil-usarmy-stub}}, Navy {{US-mil-usn-stub}}, Air Force {{US-mil-usaf-stub}} and Marines {{US-mil-usmc-stub}} --Looper5920 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, cue wave of nostalgia: "I remember when..." :) It's not quite technically huge by our (somewhat desensitised?) standards, but certainly it's big enough to make sense to split now, as assuredly we'll have to do it before much longer. I agree, your scheme seems like the logical one -- in fact, I have a feeling this may already have been proposed. If the acronyms are clear enough, can't we drop the US-mil- prefix, and just have US-Army-stub, USN-stub, USAF-stub, and USMC-stub? Or perhaps, US-airforce-stub, US-navy-stub, US-marine-stub, if we wan to be less abbreviated, but not over-long. Can you also double-check they're all over 60? A lot of the USNs and USAFs will be in other categories I think, specific to navies and military aviation, and it'd be preferable not to increase double-stubbing too much. Alai 03:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that the naming convention could improve. I like the proposals you put forth of US-Army-stub, USN-stub, USAF-stub, and USMC-stub and since I'm feelin generous we might as well throw the Coast Guard one as well. USCG-stub. ALso, I am not sure what you mean by over 60? This is my first time on this page. Is there a criteria I don't know about?--Looper5920 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notice WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stubs - procedure, below, and WP:STUB, the gist of which is that new stub types are supposed to have 60 articles already in existence (to avoid a proliferation of sub-optimally small stub types). I imagine most of the above will be "viable", but it'd be good to do a check they're in the ballpark. (I think we can take it as read for Army.) Alai 04:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Went back and did a pretty rough count. The Army and the Air Force I did not even bother counting because they are both way over 60. However the Marine Corps came in at about 55 and the Navy at about 45. I still think the stubs are worth it since both of these subjects have a lot of room to grow.--Looper5920 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and I agree with both of y'all's proposals for briefer names (US-Army-stub, USN-stub, USAF-stub, and USMC-stub). Cheers, Her Pegship 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Star-stub}}

This stub is huge and needs to be culled and reorganized badly. I propose that it be split up by constellation which will make the sub-categories more manageable. e.g. Star-stub-And (Andromeda), Star-stub-Ant (Antlia), etc. A master page can be used to navigate between them.

  • In the first instance, yes, these do need to be split, good plan: well volunteered that person! But now the quibbles (sorry). Firstly, note that stub template names should end in stub, so rather than the above, that'd be {{and-star-stub}}, etc, (or perhaps simply {{andromeda-stub, even?}}). Secondly, I have concerns with regard to size: given that there's 88 constellations, if they're split at all evenly many will be well below threshold, and in the extreme case, perhaps none above the threshold. And lastly, is constellation the most natural or convenient split? I'd have thought that either spectral type, or perhaps more likely, luminosity class (or otherwise by "type" of star, rather than position in the sky) would be preferable, and would largely avoid the above concerns on size.
  • Incidentally, the permanent categories seem to be rather a jumble: Category:Stars by constellation is completely empty, and just holds some canned text, for example. Alai 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dont think constellations is the best split. if you did that youd have some very big cats like taurus and some very small ones like circinus and (ahem) lacerta. i think that grutty's idea is prob better - do it by spectral tyupe. O-star-stub, B-star-stub, A-star-stub, F-star-stub etc etc. but it would be good to get more input from astronomers on wp. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. I suggested that luminosity class might be best as spectral type would equate a number of stars that were physically very different. So if editors have "special interests" according to the different astrophysics... But I'm somewhat guessing on that score. Alai 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, excuse my ignorance, but don't constellations differ depending on your location on Earth? Her Pegship 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several ideas: {{star-cluster-stub}} would get rid of the clusters, which are presently in {{star-stub}}. {{neutron-star-stub}} makes sense, and a subsidiary {{pulsar-stub}} might (I haven't looked at the numbers there presently, but the potential is certainly there). I propose making those three to start with. A2Kafir 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it gets more esoteric. We could go northern vs. southern hemisphere, but that's not a good division. We could have {{zodiac-star-stub}} for those 12 constellations, {{NCPstar-stub}} for those stars in a defined set of northern circumpolar constellations (Ursa Major etc.), and {{SCPstar-stub}} for those stars in a defined set of circumpolar constellations (Octans, etc.). We'd leave the rest in {{star-stub}}. OR, we could sort them by spectral class: {{OBstar-stub}}, {{AFstar-stub}}, {{Gstar-stub}}, {{KMstar-stub}}. Or by size: {{dwarf-star-stub}}, {{giant-star-stub}}. I'll think more about this before I recomend more. A2Kafir 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{OB-Associations-stub}}

I haven't seen stubs that quite fit this topic. OB Associations are clusters of giant and super-giant Class O and B stars. They are quite important from a research standpoint because star formation is actively taking place. These regions are quite important as massive O and B stars are relatively short lived and when they die, they enrich the interstellar medium with heavier elements. jamessavik

  • At the moment I think star-stub is the best we have. it's getting full and we could probably do with splitting them up, but I can think of some more obvious splits that this (a red-giant-stub, for instance, would probably be a lot more useful). I doubt you'd find enough OB association stubs to really make this one worthwhile, but a {{star-cluster-stub}} might be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea because there are a number of types of star clusters which would make for good subdivisions of the topic.


{{US-photographer-stub}}

Same drill. Over 60 articles, around 30 in {{US-bio-stub}}. Crystallina 04:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-tennisbio-stub}}

Over 60 articles, around 30 in {{US-bio-stub}}. Crystallina 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Europe-rail-stub}}

{{rail-stub}} is still pretty huge (>400), but there are no obvious candidates for separation, which has mainly been done by nationality so far. I would propose, however, that there are enough to populate a blanket Europe category, even with the exception of the already broken out UK, France and Poland. My extremely rough sampling data would put the total number of stubs between 75-150. This would have the benefit of sorting stubs from nations which probably can't get to 60 on their own, like Belgium or Bulgaria, while making it easier to sort countries which will eventually reach threshold but don't yet have the coverage, like Germany. --CComMack 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the Kurdish topics?

Perhaps we can discuss this here without getting quite the same rash of POV-inspired keeps and deletes. I wonder if we shouldn't have a single, all-embracing stub type for topics related to ethnic Kurd/the general Kurdistan region. That'd stand a better chance of being viable on size than any of the more narrowly scoped types we're currently bun-fighting over. There would remain the "where does it go in the hierarchy?" issue, but that shouldn't be the sole determinant, certainly not beyond consideration of the grouping most likely to get the articles expanded. If there were a "WikiProject Kurd(istan)" we'd likely have no objections, and there's been at least talk of such (hint, hint). Alai 17:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objections do exist. Let me list a few reasons:
  • I object to the usage of the word "Kurdistan" on any article explaining anything about kurds outside the region administered by the "Kurdish administration" in charge of significant portions of northern iraq. I also object the treating of an ethnic minority as a nationality
  1. Kurdistan is a proposed country treating it as an independent country is a breach of NPOV.
  2. Kurdistan is also an undefined region. The borders are determined by whoever is drawing them. The definition of Kurdistan is roughly "where kurds happen to live" and with that definition it includes Berlin and Nashville, Tennessee as kurds happen to live there.
  3. Also note the word 'Kurd' in Kurdistan. No other "geographic region" has the name of an enthinic minority in it.
  4. The Iraqi sub-govermental body in northern iraq has no juristiction elsewhere and they are dependent to the Iraqi goverment as much as San Fransisco is to California. Basicaly they are not an independent state and not even they are claiming being one unlike some defacto countries such as Nagorno-Karabakh, KKTC, Sealand. None of the defacto counties are treated as an independent nation. I do not see why we have been debating the stub categories about the non existant Kurdistan for days.
  5. If we unite politicians or people in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Germany, United States under one "kurdish roof" we are imlying these people work for a common political body or are somehow related. I do not know of a state that extends from Iraq to Germany and even to the United States. The propoer syntax is State-politician-stub or State-bio-stub. This syntax applies to the more significan african american minorities. Africans in the US and Canda are not united under one roof nor under one African roof
The wikproject proposal will need to be filed on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects, owever the question we need to ask ourselves do we really need a wikiproject exmapding articles based on ethnicity. Do we have anything like it on Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects even for ethnic minorities much much more significant in numbers such as african americans. Any article about "kurd related stuff" in Turkey can be expanded under a section on a wikiproject in Turkey.
Stuff related to Kurds will have to be treated just like how rest of the world is treated. Kurds are nothing more special than anyone else. A kurdish person with turkish citizenship can be marked under {{Turkey-bio-stub}}. It is not like there is an overwheliming number of kurd related articles. They would not overwhelm respective stub categories.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or of course, my initial hope might be quite wrong. CC, most of these comments are frankly not material as to whether a stub type would be useful or not, so please excuse me if I don't address the majority of them. "Proper syntax": I think you mean the stub naming conventions. These are there to provide consistency to the naming of stub types, not to be proscriptive as to which can exist in the first place. That stub names form a predictable pattern is indeed desirable, but that's a secondary consideration to actual relatedness: if something really is more related to Kurdish culture, ethnicity, etc than to Iran, Iraq, etc, then insisting they be sorted as the latter, exclusively, and not the former, is going to be counterproductive to facilitating expansion. The overriding purpose of stub-sorting is to put articles into reasonably-sized, related groups, in such a way as to maximise the chances of interested editors completing them. Much as I spend a lot of time here arguing against ignoring the "reasonably sized" part and/or the naming conventions, the "related" is (also) key.
Wikiproject approval: this is not in any way necessary, that page is a resource for gauging interest, and no more. Alai 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm strongly against having these as stub types. I've got nothing against Kurdistan, or the Kurds, or any claims for their independence. What I am against is any stub types which could easily lead to edit wars, and which set precedents for other contentious stub types. Kurdistan - by whatever definition you wish to describe it - falls within the jurisdiction of internationally recognised sovereign nations - which is how Wikipedia's articles are organised and how its stubs are split. To have a separate set of stubs for an area with ambiguous boundaries which overlaps these sovereign nations not only causes problems with the way the stubs are split but also risks having the template mercilessly swapped backwards and forwards between various wordings for different definitions of Kurdistan, as well as having the template repeatedly removed and readded to individual articles. Both of these are Bad Things - the former of them is a Very bad Thing, since template edits aren't server-frindly, as we've found in the past. Not only that, but - as I said - it's precedent-setting. Do we really want to see further templates for other similar non-sovereign entities? Do we want a reinterpretation of Macedonia-stub, or a new Ossetia-stub? If we don't, then we shouldn't set the precedent with Kurdistan. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly the "Kurdistan" type would be a red rag too far, certainly if it led to -geo- type articles being double-stubbed or edit-warred over. Though we have that and more as permanent categories already. OTOH, when it comes to peeple and culture, I'd rather have one stub type that's merely contentious, than half a dozen that're each just as contentious, and undersized to boot. Alai 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness has outlined the problem very well. The problem is that this stub can set a precedence. If we go down this road, where do we draw the line? A Chechnya-stub?, a Tibet-politician-stub?, a TRNC-stub? Or what about "Ethnic-XYZ-in-Germany-stub"? Should we draw the line when it comes to stubs about an individual's religion? Or his/her skin colour? There'll be no obvious way to draw the line, so we should simply stay clear of this road. Valentinian (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hindu-myth-stub}}

The stub would be for Hindu Mythology articles. Creation of these stubs will significantly help eliminating the load of the over-sized Hinduism and Asia-mtyh stubs category. There are many Hinduism stubs which focus on a board array of topics. Creating such a stub would lighten the load. There is already a wikiproject Hindu mythology dedicated to such topics. --Dangerous-Boy 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I completely agree for the need of such a cat. Rama's Arrow 12:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds in theory good to me. Is there a "reasonable" number of articles to go in it? Alai 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More than you know.--Dangerous-Boy 17:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I knew, I wouldn't ask. More than 59, more to the point? Alai 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes--Dangerous-Boy 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{India-gov-stub}}, {{India-ethno-stub}}, {{India-media-stub}}, {{India-sports-stub}} and {{India-culture-stub}}

There are over 70 articles regarding public offices, offices and agencies, Indian military and government installations and institutions that can and should be classified under {{India-govt-stub}}. Also, over 100 articles about Indian music, art, tribes, castes, ethnic communities can be stocked in {{India-culture-stub}}. Please see Category:India stubs for a verification of these assertions. Creation of these stubs will significantly help eliminating the load of the over-sized India stubs category. Rama's Arrow 02:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • India-people there are a lot many articles on tribes, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, lineages that can be better classified here. "India-bio" can be a sub-cat of this, while a "people" subjects can be easily put into this one. Rama's Arrow 16:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object to this name and proposed structure. Rather, I'd be in favour of India-ethno-stub, under India- and {{ethno-stub}}, iff there's the articles for it. (i.e., please quantity "a lot"). Alai 18:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aite then I withdraw "India-people" for now. I reckon more than 50 articles presently in India-stubs can fit into such a cat. Rama's Arrow 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggest, I propose a India-ethno-stub. There are definitely a lot of articles, close to 100 to be found in the general India stub cat.
India-sports-stub in the India stub category, I guesstimate that there are approximately 50-70 articles related to sports in India, mainly cricket. Rama's Arrow 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
India-media-stub to cover mass media articles on newspapers, tv stations, news stations, radio networks. I guesstimate about 50 articles in India-stub, India-econ stub and India-company stub categories as of present. Rama's Arrow 19:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait seven days (assuming some sort of consensus) before creating these, as per the guidance at the top of this page. Alai 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the early creation of these stubs, I mean absolutely no disrespect to the wikiproject. I apologize to members of this wikiproject for pre-empting this, but it is imperative for me to finish work as soon as possible. I did think for a long while before doing this. The redeeming point will be the proper organization of an huge and over-flowing category - ultimately the purpose of this wikiproject and Wikipedia are fulfilled. Rama's Arrow 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My pre-emptive work is purely constructive in nature and effect. If there are future concerns and problems, they can be easily addressed. I will help repair any questionable action, but I believe I've done the right thing, and the right move for Wikipedia. Sorry to make a meal out of this. Rama's Arrow 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this would be "imperative"; I'll give you good odds on Wikipedia still being here to edit in a week's time. It's indeed not ultimately "constructive" if other people have reasoned objections to the size, naming, scope, etc, of these stub types, and the work has to be redone. Alai 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm sorry for moving ahead before the process. I'm not trying to override anybody else's opinions or suggest that Wikipedia will cease to exist tomorrow. I wouldn't have for one-sec thought of doing this if I wasn't damn sure that that the stubs were general and routine. For example, "culture" is justifiable by the simple fact that categories for articles on cuisine, music, art and popular culture are sub-cats of "Indian culture." Give this a chance to work out - I'm damn positive that it will be a good thing. I'll definitely help correct any possible error, for which naturally I will be directly responsible. Rama's Arrow 04:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not for a moment questioning your good faith, commitment, etc; I'd just like you to refrain from creating any further stub types, within the normal discussion period. Our guidelines say "One week after listing it here", and do not go on to say "unless you're damn sure it's a damn good idea". Alai 04:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly understand and agree. I respect the wikiproject entirely. I'm sure that my pre-emption will only benefit Wikpipedia. Rama's Arrow 04:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see the tension between the first two statements you've just made, and the third, we may be destined to continue to talk past each other for some time to come. Alai 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only wished to assure you that I understand your rationale, and that I don't intend to create stubs this way again, but I do believe that what I did was only to improve the organization of the India stubs - helping Wikipedia. Dat's all. Rama's Arrow 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I'm largely satisfied by the lack of said future intent. Alai 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If most sports articles are about cricket, why not create {{India-cricket-stub}} (and not {{India-sports-stub}})? Generally we don't create country-sport-stubs. Conscious 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cricket-stub would leave a lot of the football articles in the cold. All together they make enough for a separate stub, but not separately Actually, an India-sports stub is pretty cool becoz it reflects the sports culture of India (including articles on Indian sports like kabbadi, akhada wrestling), plus accommodates articles on India's record at international sports and events. Rama's Arrow 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Thailand-film-stub}} and {{Thailand-film-bio-stub}}

{{Thailand-stub}} is a manageable size, yet looking to the future, I think it will help to have more sub-categories, since I'm very interested in creating new articles for Thai film people and films. Have a look at List of Thai films, List of Thai film directors, List of Thai actors and List of Thai actresses to see the many articles that could possibly be started. Instead of the film-bio-stub, I might be convinced to simply go for a generic {{Thailand-bio-stub}} (or it could be done in addition to the film-bio-stub) Wisekwai 16:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Category:Thailand stubs contains enough bio-stubs, so I support {{Thailand-bio-stub}} (btw, there may be more in Category:Asian people stubs). As for the film stubs, we generally create stub templates/categories only after the stubs have been created. Conscious 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with conscious. Thailand-bio-stub looks good, and the film one can always be split off later - once there are enough stubs for it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{baseball-pitcher-stub}}

{{baseballbio-stub}} is very oversized (9 pages) with no subcategories yet. I haven't done a full count but judging by the fact that I went through about 10 articles and hit 6-8 pitchers, I'm fairly confident it'll meet threshold. Crystallina 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}}

I've counted ~60 of them beginning with A-G in Category:South Africa stubs. There is a template {{SA-bio-stub}} which seems to be a duplicate of {{SouthAfrica-stub}}, I think it should be moved to {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} (and the wording corrected accordingly). There may be more bios in Category:African people stubs, but I haven't checked. Conscious 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support but.... I'm trying to cut down the large {{Africa-politician-stub}}. I did a count yesterday, and I've found 68 South African politicans (double stubbed with {{Africa-politician-stub}} and {{SouthAfrica-stub}}), so I'm about to propose a {{SouthAfrica-politician-stub}}. Since the entire category holds 473 stubs, I think it is pretty safe to make both splits. {{SA-bio-stub}} should be moved to {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} for consistency. --Valentinian (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed the -politician-stub elsewhere on this page. I don't think it will create any problems making both splits. --Valentinian (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if most of the people in Category:South Africa stubs are politicians, {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} could still be useful as a container for Category:South African politician stubs and Category:South African cricket biography stubs. Conscious 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The standard "order" would be SouthAfrica-stub -> SouthAfrica-bio-stub -> SouthAfrica-politician-stub etc. I think there's room for all three levels. --Valentinian (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support both the bio and the politician stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created and populated both of them (not sure what to do with buildings, though, so I've left them for now.) It was no problem finding enough material for both categories. Valentinian (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian geography

Category:Russia geography stubs has finally hit the 800 mark. The natural way to split it is by federal district. There are just seven of them, and six have enough stubs:

(I have to confess that I've removed the stub tag from several articles, bringing the total number down to 781.)

Each federal district, in turn, consists of several federal subjects. However, not a single one of them is ready to be split: the largest number of stubs (no surprise, about Moscow Oblast) is 54.

I'm not quite sure how to name the new templates and categories, here's my suggestion:

I've boldly dumped the lists of stubs to Grutness's page. Conscious 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beg thy pardon, Grutness. I was under impression that anyone can add lists of stubs to your page.
As for the naming, I have no idea why it's "Urals". Is this plural, adjective or what? If "Urals"=="Ural mountains", like Alpes, Andes and all, then it sounds very unnatural for a Russian (the Russian word doesn't even have a plural form). But we're writing English Wikipedia, so I accept it if it sounds better to you. And yes, I meant Ural (region).
"Volga geography stubs", doesn't sound good to me, because it seems to refer to the Volga river. "Volga Federal District geography stubs" is better. "Privolzhye" was the only one-word definition I could think of that describes that area. Conscious 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S'alright - yes, anyone can use that page, though a bit of warning would have been nice :) (I'll be filling it up with various geo-stubs myself shortly, too). As to the names, I'd go with "Volga Federal District geography stubs", if only for the sake of the template (Volga-geo-stub is a lot easier on the fingeers than Privolzhye-geo-stub!). Ural-geo-stub or Urals-geo-stub would work, though it would probably be useful to have a redirect from the other of the two as well. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is to make it Category:Privolzhye geography stubs/{{Volga-geo-stub}}. Conscious 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm - I'm a little wary of making the category and template names that different, but it might work. What about Category:Privolzhye-Volga geography stubs, or similar? Grutness...wha? 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's settle at "Volga Federal District", looks like it makes sense to everyone. Conscious 06:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-artist-stub}} / Category:British artist stubs

27 articles are currently double-stubbed thusly, 136 including lower down the hierarchy. Alai 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-singer-stub}} / Category:British singer stubs

Continuing a number of themes: both parents are oversized, 42 are directly in both, 106 candidates total. Alai 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Methinks there's some sorting to do! Alai 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-academic-bio-stub}} / Category:British academic biography stubs

163 found, 47 directly in both oversized categories. Alai 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-journalist-stub}} / Category:British journalist stubs

Both parents are oversized; 65 articles found. Alai 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-MP-stub}} / Category:Scottish MP stubs

There's 68 of these according to double-stub-counts, 51 of them in the (somewhat oversized) Scottish bios. Alai 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{USA-edu-stub}} / {{Visitation school stub}}

I added a page before realizing stubs would be a better option. Look here at the page. As I'm pretty well clueless as how stubs work, I'd appreciate some instruction (or maybe someone could revise the intro to stubs as it's really confusing).Pvt Mahoney 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Minnesota-school-stub}} to the article, which is what I think you were looking for. Don't think a new stub type is indicated, which is what this page is for. Sorry about the lack of clarity. I'm sure there is a comprehensible intro someplace -- finding it might be an issue, all right... Alai 00:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, USA-edu doesn't shout out "Visitation school" to me. We have US-edu-stub anyway (currently a redirect to US-university-stub, IIRC) which if needed could be rescoped to general education related matters. But in any case what you've got here is either a US-school-stub or one of its subcategories. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-tv-bio-stub}} / Category:British television biography stubs

I count 92 in total, including 54 double-stubbed directly into the two parents -- both of which are oversized. Alai 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Swiss-federal-councillor-stub}}

For the circa 110 past and present Category:Members of the Swiss Federal Council, virtually all of which are currently tagged as (and make up the vast majority of) Category:Swiss politician stubs. Granted, this category will grow at roughly 0.1 entry per year, but it's still useful for us fans of the enthralling saga of ambition, despair and ballot-counting that is Swiss politics - of which, yes, there are some on the English Wikipedia. Sandstein 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have to object to this; the present category has 118 articles, so it's mathematically certain that the two types are not independently over the usual threshold. Alai 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Alai. --Valentinian (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-architect-stub}}

Over 60 of these; at least 30 or 40-ish are in US-bio-stub. Crystallina 05:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{PA-SR-stub}} / {{Pennsylvania-State-Road-stub}}

Use for Pennsylvania State Road articles which are stubs. --myselfalso 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if made it should be the second name - PA-SR is ver ambiguous. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)There's an existing, undersized category Category:Pennsylvania Highway stubs with exactly this scope. Oppose on duplication, size, cryptic abbreviation of template, capitalisation... (Admittedly it's a slight improvement on the existing cat, but...) We should revisit this when firstly, there's many more of them, and secondly, when WP:NC/NH has come to a conclusion on the naming conventions for these. In the meantime, I suggest this he sorted as a US-NorthEast-road-stub, as per my proposal below. Alai 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it's not really needed since there's another so similar, but it would be very good to get the nomenclature firmed up. Whatever is decided it shouldn't have such an abbreviated name, though. BTW - 28 proposals in the first 10 days of March? What's with the avalanche? Grutness...wha? 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given we have over 100,000 stubs in oversized categories, I'd call it "a start". Personally I'd favour {{X-road-stub}}, so as to be as inclusive as possible, and to punt whole terminological nuances for the perms to worry about. Though in this case, we don't have enough stubs for one stub type, much less two. Alai 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with {{Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub}}? (what we have now) Also WP:NC/NH is on hold as there is mass edit warring in CA and NY, we'll return sometime within the next few weeks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-model-stub}} / Category:United States model stubs

There's at least 67 of these out there, including 25 in US-bio-. Alai 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-hip-hop-bio-stub}} {{US-hiphop-bio-stub}} / Category:United States hip hop biography stubs

There's at least 93 of these, 30 of them in US-bio-. Alai 23:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont we use hiphop-stub not hip-hop-stub? if we do that would be US-hiphop-bio-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right. Alai 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would its parent be? {{US-bio-stub}} or one of the music hiphop stubs ({{hiphop-stub}} and {{US-hiphop-band-stub}})? --Bruce1ee 06:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the former two. Alai 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bruce1ee 06:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, more likely {{US-musician-stub}} than {{US-bio-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, that's a lot more logical. Freudian elision, as the objective is to get them out of US-bio- (though getting them out of US-mus- is also Good Work). Alai 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't it be {{US-hiphop-stub}} / Category:United States hip hop stubs? None of the other musician stubs have "-bio-". --Bruce1ee 13:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{US-hiphop-stub}} can relate to bands and any other aspect of hip-hop culture. Conscious 13:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-rail-bio-stub}} / Category:United States rail biography stubs

I count 84 candidates, about half of them clogging up US-bio-. Make room, make room! Alai 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to go forward? (Support, by the way, if it's needed.) --CComMack 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{condensed-matter-stub}} {{condensedmatter-stub}}/ Category:Condensed matter stubs

I can see many physics stubs that fit into this one (more than 20 in the first 200, therefore a lot). --Tone 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, at least on size. But the perm-cat is at Category:Condensed matter physics, so I have reservations about the name. There was discussion earlier about splitting up the physics stubs, does anyone recall if there was a conclusion? Good idea to drop the wikiproject physicists a line about this, anyhow. Alai 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed to condensed. Indeed, it's more general. I also mentioned on the physics project's page. --Tone 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found earlier discussion of this, here. Seemed vaguely positive, if somewhat inconclusive. Alai 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Since then, some templates were already created, namely optics, classical, quantum, particle and relativity stubs. I wonder how condensed matter slipped through. Anyway, I will wait a little for more comments and proceed then. --Tone 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cant we have a better name? "condensed-stub" could mean anything. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. {{Condensed-matter-stub}} is better - Condensed-stub simply sounds like one tha5t needs expanding. Or maybe one about Readers' Digest novels... or condensed milk...or... Grutness...wha? 07:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, condensed-matter-stub it is. --Tone 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{classicalmechanics-stub}} and {{fluiddynamics-stub}} use one less hyphen, so I'd suggest {{condensedmatter-stub}}. But you've created it anyway... Conscious 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And I think it is ready now. Can I start using it or do I have to wait another 6 days even if it has general consensus? --Tone 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can go ahead since the temlpate is already here. Conscious 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, particularly as this was first mooted five months ago, and no-one has objected to the principle. (And the naming seems to have iterated to a conclusion, too.) Alai 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-film-director-stub}} / Category:United States film director stubs

Once again parents are variously "fairly large" and "vast". At least 67 of these, probably many, many more. Alai 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now I can stop counting them. Crystallina 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes sense. --Tone 18:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Her Pegship 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-med-bio-stub}} / Category:United States medical biographical stubs

Not only are the US-bios massively oversized, the med-bios in Category:Medical biographical stubs are pushing along too, and will shortly be north of 4 pages. Existing double-stubbing indicates 91 articles would fit in here. Alai 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-tv-bio-stub}} / Category:United States television biography stubs

While we have a stub type for US tv actors (heavily double-stubbed as both tv and as film actors, naturally), the parent is for tv-bios in general, and there are 52 tv bios in US-bio- -- just about the last place we want 'em -- and 147 in total lower down the hierarchy, but not in a US-TV-specific category. Probably underestimates in both cases. Alai 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a few more geo-stubs

Three more countries have reached the 65 threshold for having their own geo-stubs (in the third case long overdue IMHO). I'd like to propose:

Grutness...wha? 11:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, plus a struct-stub

Another one which I've got up to 65 from 63:

Also, there are 65 Norwegian struct-stubs marked euro-struct-stub - and probably another 50 marked bridge-struct-stub. Therefore, I'd also like to propose {{Norway-struct-stub}}.

BTW - Cuba is very close to reaching the 65 geo-stub threshold. If anyone feels like making a couple of new stubs...? Grutness...wha? 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support all of them. --Tone 19:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all of them. (I'm glad Moldova made it.) --Valentinian (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-songwriter-stub}} / Category:United States songwriter stubs

CatScan finds 168 candidates, and then pegs out, so there's probably even more. But that'd be a good start... Alai 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-composer-stub}} / Category:United States composer stubs

There are 69 articles double-stubbed in the two obvious parents, more if you consider various other permutations to the same general effect. Alai 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{operating-system-stub}} or {{OS-stub}}

I propose adding this stub category---Category:Operating system stubs---as a subcat under Category:Software stubs, since I have observed that a lot of articles in the latter is about OSes, and I think a separate stub type for those articles would contribute in encouraging OS-interested people to do some editing (not having to eyeball search for OS articles in that huge pile of general SW stubs). I suggest we have the Unix, Linux, and MS Windows stub cats be subcats under this proposed OS stub cat as well keeping them as subcats under the general SW stub cat. --Wernher 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operating-system-stub}} or {{comp-OS-stub}}, maybe, but OS is a little ambiguous. If a stub is OS, simply remove the template :) Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently trawling through the 13 pages of Software stubs. Of the 199 I have gone through so far, I have classified 10 as an Operating System (or related). They are:
Simplistic extrapolation of this result indicates that there are a potential 130 OS stubs out there, so I'd definitely support this. Although {{OS-stub}} would mean Operating system to me, {{operating-system-stub}} would be the better option. --TheParanoidOne 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support stub, agree with G & TPO on template naming. I think sub-types might be premature, though, let's just do this one for the time being. Alai 06:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking twice, I too agree on the naming. As for the sub-types I mentioned, I didn't actually propose those---they were already there. :-) --Wernher 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll create the new stub type. Thanks for commenting. --Wernher 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-guitarist-stub}} / Category:United States guitarist stubs

Can't believe I didn't think of this one earlier; they must be spread over a number of different sub-types, so that they didn't show up earlier, but according to CatScan, there's 120 of these. Alai 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ancient-Egypt-stub}}

Sorting of these stubs was proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. I suggest the following sub-stubs for starters:

Igiffin 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm more than a little skeptical. Existing category has <400 stubs, and there's already an undersized stub type, Category:Egyptian mythology stubs. These won't all pass the normal theshold of 60+, and I'm reluctant to extend the "wikiproject licence" to any number of separate stub types. I'd be surprised if they all even hit 30, come to that. Is this is necessary at all, rather than simply using permanent categories, which are more suitable for this level of detailed classification? Even if a split is indicated, can't we smoosh some of these together somewhat? (Mythology+gods and monuments+tombs look like a good start.) BTW, it'd probably be a good idea to rename to AncientEgypt-<whatever>, if we have our story straight about the naming convention yet. Alai 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ancient-Egypt actually is in keeping with Ancient-Rome, Ancient-Greece and similar, so I'd favour keeping the hyphen. I definitely think the size of the categories could be a problem, though, and Ancient-Egypt-god-stub would surely fill the almost-empty {{Egyptian-myth-stub}}. Let's face it Egypt-struct-stub is currently undegoing the deletion process because it's underused and was never proposed. It has only ten stubs, so where are you going to find fifty or so each for tombs, libraries, museums...? Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{China-politician-stub}}

There are 193 articles in Category:Asian politician stubs, and whilst I am not sure how many of these are Chinese it seems reasonable to assume that China is big enough to warrant splitting. Darcyj 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really especially large. If there's 60 of them, weak support, if there's not, strong oppose. OTOH, Category:Chinese people stubs is getting largish, so if it'd help there, that'd be useful. Alai 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same reservation as Alai. Are we talking about Mainland China or both the Mainland and Taiwan, btw? --Valentinian (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We consistently use China-xxx-stub for Mainland China (i.e., PRC excluding HK and Macau). We use Taiwan-xxx-stub for RoC. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that takes care of that problem. Regarding the number of stubs, Asia-politician-stub has rather few Chinese, but China-bio-stub must contain more politicians. I've never made a count of them, though. --Valentinian (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Said use seems a little dubious, though: Category:China includes HK and M, and our alleged practice is to follow the scope of the corresponding permie... Alai 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We ran into strong resistance for putting the Hong Kong and Macau items in with the PRC ones (harrumph...nstantnoo...cough, cough :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only consistent for things related to the defined territory in modern times, e.g. geography, buildings. For history, people, painter, writer, military, we don't have that distinction, and such distinction is not quite possible at the time being, for we've to take pre-1912/1949 history into consideration. Since the stub categories normally keep growing as anything on Wikipedia, it'd be possible to create {{MainlandChina-xxx-stub}} for post-1949 articles (and leave {{China-xxx-stub}} and category:China xxx stubs for pre-1912, and as a parent of mainland China's ones). {{ROC-xxx-stub}}, as template redirects, are used for things related to the ROC but are not or not only related to Taiwan. — Instantnood 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've done a count of the Asian politicians and my number for Mainland China is around 42. This number includes a few (around 5-8) politicians from the 1911-1949 period, so I don't know if they should belong here or under Taiwan (ROC). I have not checked the Category:Asian people stubs but so far, there's not enough politicians. Btw, I also have four politicians from Imperial China, which I don't know what to do with. Valentinian (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems to be too few for a separate category for now, but it might be something to watch. Darcyj 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need to get my head examined. The relevant category is of couse Category:Chinese people stubs. I haven't checked it, but others are very welcome to do so. In any case, I'm watching China. Valentinian (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps poli-bio-stub could be an option. Imperial mandarins and technocrats under communist rule are not quite like politicians in the modern and western sense. — Instantnood 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a great fan of grouping imperial officials with politicians in the modern sense of the word (might be a slightly Euro-centric POV on my behalf). I had the same gut feeling about cabinet ministers from pre-democracy Denmark (just to name my own country). I didn't consider this possiblity, but I'll examine the articles again, next time I go over the material. I hope I'll make it within the coming week. Valentinian (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Jesper. — Instantnood 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not real big on following stub sorting discussions but in general there shouldn't be any reason to make all these sub-divisions because of the whining of Instantnood. Alai is absolutely correct that one term "China" does fine to include HK and MO, it is after all, one country. This would include pre-1949 ROC and dynastic people too. There's no reason to declare these people are from a different "place" because of the changing of governments. SchmuckyTheCat 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are related to governments. The word China does fine to include Hong Kong and Macao, if and only if it's not used synonomously with mainland China, as in the case in many real-life situations and many articles and categories across Wikipedia. — Instantnood 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then organize the stubs by politics if that's what you're going on about. China could mean mainland, or it could not. If we say it's ok to include HK and MO politicians in this stub category, then that's what meaning we use. Your level of POV pushing pedantism is disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing pedantic, considering Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. We've gotta be serious with details and accuracy. And no, I did not say it's (or it isn't) okay to extend this category to cover Hong Kong and Macao politicians. — Instantnood 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub categories aren't content, so no, we don't have to be über-accurate and pedantic. And I think a lot of people have stopped caring whether you say something is ok or not. You don't understand consensus, you don't respect it, and you're recognized as a POV-pushing revert warrior under arbcom sanction.
From the discussion above: 1. There aren't enough "mainland only" politicians (even including pre-1949 ROC and dynastic) to justify a mainland only stub cat - BUT the proposal is to create a generic China category, which including HK and MO, might make sense numerically. That makes it obvious that your proposal/opposition isn't based on what's been presented and what is useful to the stub-sorting project but instead they are based on your personal biases on the definition of China. That's a problem. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where and when did the ArbCom declare I am a " POV-pushing warrior "? And where and when did I not respect consensus? In what way is my definition of China " personal biases ", when it's basically true fact? Did the proposer suggest to cover Hong Kong and Macao? If she/he did, why there were people seeking clarification? Please kindly justify before you made bold claims and accusations.

" ...which including HK and MO, might make sense numerically. " I did not count myself, but from the figure presented above, not even a generic category got enough stubs to be qualified. What I talked about was that what could be useful in the long run. — Instantnood 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Please assume good faith. It seems people simply draw the line different places, so let's stick to debating the issues. According to the category description pages, both the {{China-stub}} and {{Taiwan-stub}} are used regarding the 1911-1949 situation. In any case, this seems a bit inconsistent, so perhaps we should start there? So far, we've sorted politicians according to current administrative division, not by ethnicity. I suggest we should stick to that definition.
To me it makes the most sense to see Imperial China and the pre-1949 situation as a continuum. As I see it, we basically have three options: Option 1) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic in one category ({{China-stub}}), the PRC ({{MainlandChina-stub}} or {{PRC-stub}}) in a second, {{Taiwan-stub}} in a third (both children of the first?), Hong Kong and Macau as distinct stubs (children of either the PRC or the first category?) (= 5 templates); Option 2) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic + PRC in one category ({{China-stub}}), Taiwan in a second, HK and Macau as distinct stubs (children of the first category?) (= 4 templates); Option 3) Imperial China + pre-1949 republic + PRC including HK and Macau in one cat., post-1949 Taiwan in a distinct category. Basically, this means reserving "Taiwan" to the post-1949 island. (= 2 templates) Did I miss anything? Valentinian (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Belarus-bio-stub}} and {{Oceania-politician-stub}}

Two more stubs now seem splittable:

Addendum {{Greece-politician-stub}} and {{SouthAfrica-politician-stub}}

I missed this one these two before:


(the South Africa proposal should be seen in context with Conscious' proposal for a {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} listed elsewhere on this page. Given the large size of {{SouthAfrica-stub}} I think it is pretty safe to make both splits.) --Valentinian (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{spain-geo-stub}}

At over 6 pages in Category:Spain geography stubs, further subdivision would appear warranted. The obvious approach would be by autonomous community, of which there are seventeen. At least the larger of the autonomous communities could be commenced with, if not in fact all of them. So am proposing something like:

--cjllw | TALK 08:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how many articles would be in each of these? --Stemonitis 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's only 6-7 pages, I doubt all 17 of these would reach a splittable threshold. The average size would be around 75, so some of them will definitely be splittable (for most subnational regions we use 65 or thereabouts as the splitting size). I haven't done a count of Spain - for the most part, the only geo-stub tallies I do are for regions not yet split into countries - but if other country splits are anything to go by, I'd expect Madrid to definitely be splittable. Since we already have Catalonia-stub and Valencia-stub, it might make sense to do geo-stubs for them too. Other than that, a count might be in order. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take a look at the articles in Category:Lists of municipalities in Spain, you will see that without including natural geographical features (most of which are stubs) there are potentially hundreds of candidates per (most) autonomous communities. Note that quite a few of the items in these lists are redlinked not because they don't exist, but because they exist under a variant title; in the past couple of days I've been going through an exercise in recategorising and correcting links to articles on Spanish municipalities, and even in the early stages of that process have come across at least 40 or so stubs not marked as such- which in fact prompted me to make this proposal, rather than carry on adding them to Category:Spain geography stubs. Although I've not yet made a formal count, my experience thus far indicates that the threshhold of around 65 would be met easily by the larger communities (that's if I don't expand 'em as I go!). Perhaps the island autonomous communities won't make it, but I'd at least like to make a start on the others (btw, point taken re naming standard wrt Canaries, have modified it above).--cjllw | TALK 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States science fiction writer stubs

Exactly 60 stubs included in both Category:Science fiction stubs and in Category:US writer stubs, one of which is oversized. Alai 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian battle stubs

While Category:Battle stubs is no longer oversized (though I say so myself), this has now hit 61 articles (counting just those that're also in Category:Russian history stubs), and is probably worth splitting off too. Alai 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Da! --Valentinian (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • mmm. ya nye znaiyu. The trouble with splitting battle-stub by country is that most battles involve two countries. You're likely to end up simply increasing the number of stub templates on each article. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having just done about 800 battle stubs on that basis, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bar that objection on time! Note these are existing double-stubbings (or treble, quadruple, quintuple...), and this is pretty consistently reducing the total number of templates. See the discussion under the earlier battle sub-types. Alai 05:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American skating biography stubs

There's now 68 articles in both Category:American people stubs and in Category:Skating biography stubs, up significantly from the discussion, below, about US-sports-bio (still viable separately, of course...). Alai 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melbourne rail stubs

Continuing the rail theme, Category:Australian rail stubs has just peeked over the five page mark, and 215 (!) articles are double-stubbed in here and in Category:Melbourne stubs, so this is a cheap and cheerful way of getting it back down to 3 pages. Alai 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea - probably worth telling WikiProject Melbourne about this before it goes ahead, too! Grutness...wha? 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody can create the category and the template, I would be happy to work on this. I was going to create it myself, but I don't fully understand what goes into one, and don't wanna mess up. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coming shortly... Slambo (Speak) 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created. Template at {{Melbourne-rail-stub}}, category as stated above. Sort away! Slambo (Speak) 16:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 250 stubs in that cat alone! - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split of {{UK-railstation-stub}}

there are seven pages of these. i havent done a count but it may be worthwhile splitting them into England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and possibly London. anyone know how many would go in each or should i take a random sample? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok ive done a count from the first ten in each column in the catagory. its probably biased it a bit towards wales becuase one of the columns started with "Ll". i rounded the count a bit to make it exactly 15% of the articles.
  • England (exc london) - 107 articles (est 713 over all)
  • Scotland - 31 articles (est 207 over all)
  • Wales - 42 articles (est 280 over all)
  • London - 24 articles (est 160 over all)
  • N.I. - no articles!
spliting into England-railstation-stub, Scotland-railstation-stub, Wales-railstation-stub and London-railstation-stub looks good :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these seem likely to hit threshold on the basis of the above stats. Alai 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mais oui! 09:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • ... and the purpose here is stub-sorting, not categorisation (esp. not for categorisation's sake). Sorting by county is unlikely to be viable on size for any at present, except perhaps the odd one or two, but the need for a (further) split is pretty much imminent. Maybe the unpopularity will spur people to "de-stub" the articles. (No, I didn't really think so either.) Alai 16:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you're splitting out England, Scotland and Wales station stubs, then {{UK-railstation-stub}} will be de facto {{NI-railstation-stub}}; why not just rename it while you're at it? Leave the category of UK railway station stubs, without a stub template filling it, to hold the four sub-categories. That said, I support the proposal, with the strong suspicion that England will have to be further split some time soon. --Stemonitis 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made {{Scotland-railstation-stub}} and {{Wales-railstation-stub}}, and their relevant categories. I've also started to populate them, but I'd gladly accept some help. I wasn't sure what to do with England, so I've left it for the moment. --Stemonitis 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seemed to be to split out London, and to live in denial about the rest for a little longer. :) Alai 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wales and Scotland are now finished. I'll leave the English to sort out their remaining mess. --Stemonitis 11:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well wrought, Stem. As there's still over 1000, and on the above estimates of the Londons, will still be oversized after those are split out, I'll re-float my suggestion of splitting by (the other) English regions (too). Alai 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im making a start on london. once this is all done perhaps the main catagory should be renamed to "United Kingdom..." too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps - ive found one NI one! Coleraine railway station. There may be more :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All 8 of the Northern Ireland railway station articles are of stub length, but only Coleraine, Londonderry and Larne Town are marked with {{UK-railstation-stub}}. Just for information. --Stemonitis 08:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished out London. I'd say, based on current categorisation and informal counting as I went, that Greater Manchester, Kent, Merseyside, and Tyne and Wear are at or near threshold. Someone may want to do a formal count. I would advocate splitting by county where it is called for, then evaluating where we are. --CComMack 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of existing categorisation, the first three are all "near" (50-56 articles). There may be the odd station that lacks a per-county cat, but it seems pretty thorough on the whole. For Tynes and Wear, it depends on whether one counts the Metro stations (they're not perm-catted that way). Alai 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some may not have obvious categories; Category:UK railway station stubs ∩ Category:Railway stations in Merseyside (and subcats) yields 50 articles, while Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom ∩ Category:Historic transport in Merseyside yields another 8. As to Tyne and Wear Metro stations, unless they're numerous enough to have their own category like {{LUL-stub}}, they should count towards the county-wide count. --CComMack 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There indeed seem to be about 60-70 not under Category:Railway stations in England (though that would also include the handful of NIs, and is still <10%, a pretty good hit rate). Basically the choice is either do the above, (somewhat marginally viable) splits now, and be left with a residual of 3 1/2 pages; or to split by regions, and have a number of one-page sub-cats. It'd be interesting to determine if we're at or near "saturation coverage" of the current stations (though doubless there's many disused stations that might come along later). Alai 22:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, I suppose the questions I have are: 1) How saturated is our article coverage, and 2) Where else do we use regions as opposed to counties to subdivide England? --CComMack 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the first question, I was hoping someone else would have a handy answer to that. I found a statement that post-Beeching, there's been around 2000, but no more precise a figure. Judging by UK railway stations, and the fraction of redlinks, coverage is in the ballpark of 80-90%.
On the second: The number of times that England has been "stub-sorted" geographically at all is rather modest -- AFAIK, once, the -geo- stubs -- so there's no exactly a mountain of precedent here. In that case, the population did eventually grow to the point where by-county splits were feasible, though it was a long and lingering process. (How the permanent categories are arranged is another matter entirely.) I note that List of British towns with no railway station is arranged by region, and by the looks of it, for roughly analogous reasons: the list could be too "thin" if split by county. Alai 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, time for a Stupid American Question: are the counties strict subsets of regions? I look around, but I see lots of mentions of boundaries getting moved, and not so much about what goes into what. (Also, the difference between administrative and ceremonial counties with the same names but different boundaries... oy. My head hurts.) If the answer is "yes, these regions are simply counties stuck together and not something more complicated, then I formally withdraw any objection. --CComMack 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes very little empathic effort on my part to Feel Your Pain(TM), as I feel a good deal of it myself every time I wrestle with the detail of this. Doesn't help that I've been out of the UK for most of the last ten years, during which time the last iteration of changes took place. But the short answer is "yes"; the currently defined counties are each properly contained in a single region, and so it'd be possible to split into regions, and then re-split into counties (or indeed, to split into regions by category, but have a template per county), without any "sideways" movement.
The slightly longer answer is that "administrative county" as such is old terminology, dating back about 30 years (but three iterations of major local government reorganisation(!)). Actual "local goverment" now occurs at a) district level (districts being properly contained within counties), and/or b) county level, and in the single case of London, regional level -- but in no case at all three. There's either the region and (London) borough (effectively county-level, though not in name), or the county and the district, or just the county, or just the district. To further complicate matters, non-elective functions often use different boundaries again for administrative functions. Historic/traditional/former administrative counties will, as you say, often have the same names, but different borders, and are a whole different can of worms. It must be said there are indeed a number of traditionalist backwoodsmen that will argue about what the counties are (or should be), insist in writing old county names on their mail, etc, but unless they show up here and start edit-warring, hopefully that's not a concern here. Alai 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ska album stub

I propose a new subcategory for Category:Album stubs for ska albums, and a template to go with it. I'm not sure where we're supposed to keep that list of articles we think is appropriate for the category, so I'll just start it here: bmearns.....(talk) 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm hoping that's not the whole list; we're cutting our own throats if we agree to start any more new stub types for less than 60! (OK, I exaggerate a tad.) But this parent is so oversized I'm inclined to support on spec. Alai 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why ska? There are other genres mixed into album stubs that could probably come closer to threshold. Eight articles won't make much of a dent. Crystallina 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well ska because I happened to be creating two articles for ska albums and noticed that there was no such stub category. I honestly don't know if that's all the articles currently in or not, I will continue to look. But by all means, if this is too much of an inconvenience I'm not all that concerned with it. I'm not familiar with the logistics of creating a new sub cat for this project, so if it's a hassle, don't even worry about it. bmearns.....(talk) 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's a hassle, it's that the ska category may not meet threshold. I just finished album stubs and didn't encounter many ska articles. Crystallina 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{cellphone-stub}}

There's a good need for cellphone or mobile phone-related stubs so I'll make that right now. I was told to post my stub ideas here before making them. --Shultz III 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well you were told that much but you didnt reads the instructions on this page! the whole point of proposing them here is so they can be debated for a week before they are created. that way we can tell if it will be useful before you make it. this template simply doubles up stuff already covered by other templates like telecom-company-stub and comm-stub. and you didnt make it propoerly either (i had to fix it so that the catagory could be seen and worked - its still a redling tho). please follow the instructions! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Duplicative of Category:Wireless stubs, which isn't in urgent need of being split. No harm to have the template as a redirect. Alai 04:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alai. --Valentinian (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged this with above category. This leaves Category:Cellphone stubs empty, and a candidate for deletion in 4 days if everyone is agreeable. Alai 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template deleted via SFD. Logged discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language stubs

We need an "Austro-Asiatic language" stub and template. Most of the current stubs that would take this template are currently marked as "Afro-Asiatic language stubs" which is grossly inaccurate. The few that aren't are simply marked with a plain "language stub" template.--WilliamThweatt 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have some width-of-scope concerns; the corresponding permanent categories are far from massive. The parent isn't oversized, so leaving the ones already there (correctly), and moving up any in Afro-asiatic (incorrectly) wouldn't be a disaster by any means. How many of these actually are there? Alai 04:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that there are numerous stubs that are presently incorrect. Any solution that would remedy this would be acceptable for me. However, for the sake of consitancy, I would prefer that the new Stub be created. Otherwise we will have some labeled as "Afro-asiatic", and some simply labled as "Language". The Austro-Asiatic language family is an upper-level (parent) classification, analogous with "Indo-European", "Afro-Asiatic", "Austronesian", etc. I found at least 10 present stubs and literally scores of "red-links" that will one day need this catagory.--WilliamThweatt 06:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the concern that current mis-sorting may be an indication of possible future mis-sorting (perhaps due to the superficial similarity of the name -- we should probably rename Aa-lang-stub to be less ambiguous). The rule of thumb, though, is based on current size, to avoid creating titchy backwater stub types. Ten is too small for my personal tastes, though admittedly we do have worse... Shame that an Austric category would be entirely (minority) POV. Alai 07:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best thing is to do what is done with other such situations - keep them simply as {{language-stub}} for now, but keep a close eye on their numbers, re-proposing once it's clear there are enough for a meaty category. Given that it is a basic language family and most of the others have been split the threshold can probably be bent a bit - I'd have no objection if there were 30 stubs, say - but ten is very thin. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly at any rate it'd be no harm to create a template for them, though if there's really that few, keep it feeding into the main category for the time being. Alai 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with creating a template that simply feeds into the main "language" catagory, if that can be done. However, I am still counting articles and have now found 17 Austro-Asiatic stubs labeled as "language stubs" in addition to the original 10 that are mislabeled. This brings the total count (so far) to at least 27 stubs that would fit this new catagory. With such a large language family, I'm sure there are even more, but because of the way they're currently classified (or not classified), they're so spread out making it time-consuming to look for them all (which is one of the problems I'm trying to remedy).--WilliamThweatt 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I seem to have mislaid a reply to this I thought I'd made earlier... 27's better than some we have, at any rate, and is around what we consider the usual minimum for a new category where there's a wikiproject. Note there's an existing permanent category, which should serve for consolidation purposes. Distinct templates feeding into the same category are indeed possible: just create a redirect, or near-copy of the existing template. (I'll be glad to help if you have any trouble.) Alai 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged or retagged four, that were either untagged or mistagged. Don't know if these are additional to the above. Alai 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious: Which template did you retag them with?
Lang-stub. I'll be able to find 'em again from my edit history, from the summary, though. Alai 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1930 aircraft stubs

There are about 60 of these, total, currently in three unproposed, undersized, and yet mysteriously undeletable stub categories. Smoosh 'em all together and make one good one (but keep existing templates, all feeding in here, for easing of future re-splitting, should the need arise). I'm ignoring the issue of whether a split by age is at all wise, due to "facts on the ground". Alai 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems we can't get rid of these horrible things, this may be the best solution. Go for. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please add new items to the bottom of this section

Rail stubs scratch pad

Just a quick note to other sorters that I've started a scratch pad for notes about sorting articles tagged with {{rail-stub}}. I've started by doing a country count to see how close we could be to the next split based on political borders (I thought there were more Ireland articles, but the count says otherwise). I plan to take a closer look at Category:US rail stubs next to see how it can be better handled. Slambo (Speak) 21:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Compu-X-stub}} messages

Several of the children of {{Compu-stub}} have the message "This X-related article is a stub. Help Wikipedia by expanding it." Every other stub template I've seen (well, with a couple of odd exceptions) say "You can help ...". The way it's worded here, apart from being inconsistent with other stub templates, sounds rather rude to me. I'd change them myself but I thought there might be a reason (I don't take editing templates lightly), so I'm being cautious and asking this WikiProject's folks about it. Hairy Dude 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for telling us. Valentinian (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvola icons wherever possible?

Wikipedia:Browse, Portal:Browse, Portal:Society, Portal:Technology and a lot of other-language Wikipedias (such as ), use Nuvola icons to refer to topics. I think we should do the same in our stub templates, whenever possible. Besides consistency, these icons have the advantages of being:

  • LGPL;
  • culturally neutral and non-controversial, to my knowledge;
  • colourful and friendly;
  • available to suit many topics (the biggest gaps probably being religion and food); and
  • very legible at 32x32px, which many of our existing images (being photos) are not.

Many templates already do this, from Template:Metal-album-stub to Template:Golf-stub to Template:Chem-stub to Template:Electro-stub. Good, modified icons have been made for others such as Template:Musical-film-stub and Template:Furniture-stub. I believe we should commit to using (original or modified) Nuvola icons for stubs whenever possible.

We may not be ready to do this with flags yet. User:Valentinian tells me there are a large number of dual-country stub articles. Since only a handful of flags are available (original: Spain, France, Japan; modified: Peru) yet, this means that many articles will be decorated with both a straight and a waving flag. If this is an issue, we can hold off on changing the flags over until more Nuvola-esque flags are available.

However, I think in general, using Nuvola wherever possible would increase legibility and stylistic consistency and improve the aesthetics. Does everyone agree? Seahen 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all the double- and triple-stubbing going on, it'd look pretty bad if we start using two or more standards on the flags, and I'd really prefer if we postpone a change of them, for the time being. If a (more) complete set of flags becomes available, we can decide on a complete shift then. I've gone through a lot of the templates to preserve a consistent look (.svg version and 30px), so I'd hate to see that go. An update of other icons might be a good idea, but that should be considered on a case-to-case basis. There's no need for change if the template already uses a great free image (e.g. the portrait of Einstein for {{Physicist-stub}}.) Second, we should still strive for templates to use different icons as much as possible, enabling easy identification. Just my thoughts. Valentinian (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definately agree with Valentinian. The nuvola icons might be useful for a lot of cases, but not for others, it should be decided depending on the stub you need an icon for.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I know a suitable Nuvola icon is not available for every template, consider the following. (Note that icon sizes have been normalized to 40px.)
Template Current
icon 		Nuvola
alternative
Compu-stub
Math-stub
Insect-stub
Geo-stub
TV-stub File:TV icon.png
Software-stub
Bcast-stub File:Tower-wireless.png
Now, can we all agree that the Nuvola icons are (a) more colourful and visually appealing; (b) easier to read at first glance; and (c) more consistent in appearance, compared to the ones on their left? Seahen 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them look appealing, e.g. the tv-icon, but to be frank, I'm not a fan of the Apple-look, and I personally find it a bit too childish (sorry if this offends any Apple-user reading this, but hey, that's my view. The only thing important is the quality of the text.) The computer- and tv-icon are good, but the original maths and broadcasting icons are also very appealing. I don't like the new geo-icon, and I don't understand the square on the software-icon; I presume it's a monitor. In my book, stub images should be easily identifiable but not dominating. I *will* give you that the Nuvola icons are generally more colourful. Btw, who implemented a standard about 40 pix images for stub templates? Not WP:WSS, and I find most images large enough, particularly on double-stubbed pages. Regarding the flags, I'm currently going through all templates using flag icons, so *please* don't make changes to a standard that 95% of them actually follow. Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for putting all icons at 40px was to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. As for the globe, sit back from your monitor a bit, and tell me: which one can you recognize as a globe from two or three feet away? Or compare them at the smaller sizes we generally use: versus and versus This is the advantage of colourful, space-filling icons: they're more readable. Seahen 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find them too glossy, "loud" and dominating. The glossy look reminds me of the wrappings of candy, not something I should take seriously. Geo-stubs might not be the best of examples since the great majority of them are stubbed with an template using a national flag. I've reverted the edit to the {{academic-bio-stub}}, the added image was simply an icon of a white person wearing a tie, and the image reminds me of a salesman or businessperson, not a professor. Second, I don't see the point about standing away from the monitor, since the important part of Wikipedia is its text, not the layout. The layout of Britannica is pretty dull too, but that's because it is irrelevant to the page's main task; conveying information. Third, some editors hate the notion of stub templates in the first place, and have specifically objected to the use of images on them. I see no reason to further anger these editors. The stub images were retained but a key reason was that members of WP:WSS argued that we need the images for our stub sorting work. Fourth, double- and triple-stubbings is extremely common, and large glossy images on those will dominate way too much. Especially if the stub article also uses an infobox or something similar on the right side of the screen. My impression of the proposed examples: Computer: might be an idea, but should be 30px, Maths: old image is serious, new one is noicy, Insect: the first image is clearly more serious, Geo: new one is way too glossy, tv: no clear winner there, software: the original image is a lot better, since the combination of a package, cd, and disk clearly shows what it's all about. The new image could as well be perceived as a music disc or DVD. It's impossible to see if the square is a book, box, monitor or whatever, Broadcasting: the second image only reminds me of a piece from a ludo game. I don't see any reason to change the status quo unless a new image is vastly superior to an old one. And stub sorters keep an eye out for that. Its part of the job. Valentinian (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yuuk! some of those look awful compared to whats there now (and i am an apple user). were not five year olds so why use five year old book illustrations? fwiw i vote against this proposal! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I agree with BL - those nuvola icons look very childish. In any case, as to their "political neutrality", a great deal of thought goes into the creation of neutral stub icons, and they are often far better in this regard than the dinky little kid's book icons in the nuvola system. I'm also opposing this proposal. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the matter some more thought, and I basically find the outline too childish. I prefer a more serious / scientific look. I'd second Grutness' point about the neutrality. Stub sorters already strive very much to avoid offending anyone with the stub images, and I think they're doing a good job. I can't remember a single edit war over this issue. Oppose this suggestion. If an editor finds a stub image to be sub-standard, he/she will probably also look in the nuvola package, but editors shouldn't be restricted to using them. I don't see any need to change the standard size of stub images either. Valentinian (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with any of the example current icons. Not much to separate them. I doubt Nuvola has enough icons with appropriate separation and distinctions to be able to universally place a different one on each stub template - and I definitely vote against repeating the same icon on different stub templates. If Nuvola has enough depth to replace the photos with icons, I would be open to support that (for stub templates with either no picture or a scaled photo), but does it really have a suitable icon for (example) {{Australia-road-stub}} that is sufficiently distinct from every other substub of both {{Australia-stub}} and {{Road-stub}}? --Scott Davis Talk 11:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nuvola does not have an icon for Australian roads. Instead, I'd suggest replacing the existing photo with an Australian highway sign (maybe ?), since it would be more readable. Seahen 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian road stub photo was discussed on the Australian noticeboard and selected as at that size it was clearly a road and had recognisable Australian colours in it. --Scott Davis Talk 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, someone changed the icon on flag-stub to a nuvola one - I've just reverted it, since replacing a deliberately non-political flag (a maritime signal flag) with two European national flags is a clear example of why the nuvola images are actually far less neutral than our own icons. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography stubs sorting

The following - verbatim - was a message from Instantnood to my user talk page - sounds like a good idea... are there any technical/other problems with it? Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to sort biography stubs according to the "Family Name, Given Name" format? That line in the templates can be written as [[Category:Something people stubs|{{{1}}}]] or [[Category:Something people stubs|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] (instead of [[Category:Something people stubs]]). — Instantnood 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for bringing the matter here. I've tested the proposal with the article on Cecilia Cheung (This article was chosen because the given name and the family name start with the same letter.). I used |{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} instead of |{{{1}}} since it's impossible to modify all articles at a time – those not yet modified are kept sorted in the old way. — Instantnood 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Performing Arts Stub?

There is not currently a stub category for performing arts, defined in this instance as artistic performances performed before a live audience. As a result of this missing category, there are also no subcategories for drama, comedy, improvisational theater, musical comedy, melodrama, performance art, marching band, color guard, winter guard, drum corps, operetta, kabuki, and several other legitimate performing arts. There are also many "crossover" categories: dance, symphony, etc. There probably quite a hierarchy here, and I have not proposed a category because it is not clear to me if we can have categories that cross-list subcategories. Is someone more experience in category formation willing to to tackle this, or at least provide me with some pretty honkin' good guidance while I try it? Ray Trygstad 05:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well first don't try it yourself, because it will need debating here - what you're proposing is quite an organisational/hierarchical change. Currently the different things you mention are all dealt with in their separate categories - operetta and musical comedy use the same stub as opera, for instance, drama uses either play-stub or theat-stub or some subcategory of them depending on the particular type of drama. Improvisional theatre also uses theat-stub as does kabuki (probably double-stubbed with japan-stub). Performance art uses art-stub, and both marching bands and drum corps use one of the musical ensemble stubs (I have no idea what a winter guard or color guard are so I can't comment on them). In other words, all of these items are already categorised and subcategorised in places on the tree - creating a new branch specifically relating to performance is a huge and probably unnecessary extra tangle on the tree. (BTW I've moved this to the proposer place on the page!) Grutness...wha? 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle stub

Either I'm blind or missing something obvious, but how do you label a stub which is about a castle? Heidelberg Castle came to mind. I came up with using "German structure stub" or something. There exists a template:castle-stub but it's a bit broken. Has there really never been a need for such a thing before? The trouble is, castles aren't necessarily military history, they aren't necessarily "structures" (they could be ruins),... anyway. Stevage 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Castle stub and added it to the Heidelburg page. Burns flipper 11:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Castle-stub shouldn't exist - it wasn't proposed. Use germany-struct-stub, which is what is used for all other german castles. And what makes you think ruins aren't structures? Grutness...wha? 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't know the stub policy, but in the meantime, could castle-stub at least be a redirect or something? It's very useful to be able to just guess at the name of a stub, rather than having to actually look it up, and castle-stub is a pretty intuitive name :) Personally, I'm not sure that splitting everything by country is necessarily the best way - Heidelberg castle is probably more likely to attract castle fans that German building fans. But anyway, there's obviously a bit of "history" here...Stevage 14:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=49533366"