|
=== [[Korean War]] ===
{{shortcut|[[WP:WSS/P]]}}
I have been editing this article for a few days. I ran down through the article and fixed any grammer mistakes I could find. I would appreciate any suggestions on what to do and how I can really improve it further. Thanks a lot. [[User:Mr. Killigan|Mr. Killigan]] 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
{{WSS}}
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]].
==== Kirill Lokshin ====
==Proposing new stubs - procedure==
{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" style="background: #f7f8ff; border: 1px solid #88a; padding: 5px; font-size: 80%;"
|- style="text-align: center;"
| style="width: 88px; padding-right: 6px;" |
| style="background: #ccf;" |'''Proposing new stubs'''
| style="width: 88px; padding-left: 6px;" |
|-
| colspan="3" |If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
#List it ''at the bottom of the current month's section'', under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp ('''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''').
#* Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or noticeabiliy of the topic
#Find a good number 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.
#Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
#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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types|the stub types list]] in an appropriate section.
|}
There are a number of areas to work on, at this point; keep in mind, though, that this is a very high-profile article, so you should be careful to move slowly and carefully to avoid getting entangled in any editorial conflicts here.
* <s>The article is, in my opinion, simply too long; we're looking at 72K (~12,000 words) of prose. The "Legacy" section, in particular, is ripe for splitting out into a separate [[Legacy of the Korean War]] article, with a much shorter summary left in the main one.</s>
* <s>"Korean War (1950 – 1953)" should really be something like "Course of the war"; you probably don't want to repeat the article title as a section heading.</s>
* The citations need cleanup; at a minimum, all of the embedded external links should be converted to footnotes. There are also a number of "citation needed" tags floating around. Beyond that, more thorough citation would be appropriate throughout the article; see [[WP:MILHIST#CITE]] for some guidelines.
* <s>The "Depictions" section should be turned into prose, rather than a laundry list of films; see also [[WP:MILHIST#POP]].</s>
* <s>The "Names" section, as it's presently constituted, would work much better as a narrow sidebar; it's of some interest, but I doubt there's enough material to sustain a separate section.</s>
* <s>The "See also" section should be eliminated. If something isn't worth linking from the text, it's generally not worth linking at all. </s>
* <s>The rump "Bibliography" section should be removed as well.</s>
* The "External links" section could use trimming.
Hope that helps! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 04:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)<s>cool</s>
::Thank you very much for offering your opinion! [[User:Mr. Killigan|Mr. Killigan]] 00:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
==Proposals, July 2005==
=== New album stubs ===
:''I've moved this from the [[WP:WSS/ST]] talk page. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 10:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)'' - Sorry keep getting confused. - ([[User:Erebus555|Erebus555]] 17:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC))
{{template link|album-stub}} is getting very large now and I believe it should be split into more sub categories such as rock-album-stub or rap-album-stub. For the time being it should be split into very general groups so that we don't have a stub which will only get one page such as thrash-metal-stub. I believe the main categories should be:
*Country-album-stub
*Rock-album-stub
*Rap-album-stub
*RnB-album-stub
*Dance-album-stub
*Classical-album-stub
There might be more that could be added which I have not thought up yet but what do you tihnk? -([[User:Erebus555|Erebus555]] 09:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
:First it might be useful to determine what will get an album off the stub list. Most of the album articles I've seen say "'''X''' is an album by [[Y]]" and give a tracklist. In a majority of cases I don't see much chance they'll ever develop beyond that. Who's going to page through all the country-album-stubs, say, and expand those articles? There isn't much to say about most albums. What say we restrict the stub tag to those which just have the first sentence but no track list? There's a [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums]] with their own cleanup template, {{tl|album}}.—[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 18:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|labor-bio-stub}}===
I just started at this stub-sorting project and the first person I pick, [[Albert Shanker]], is a labor organizer. Shouldn't there be a bio stub for labor leaders? –[[User:Shoaler|Shoaler]] ([[User talk:Shoaler|talk]]) 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:Mmmm. If there were, then something like Unionist-bio-stub would be a better name, since labout is a word that varies spelling between North American English and Rest-of-the-world English (Australia, being weird, uses both spellings for two different things). Also several countries have political parties called Labour, so you might end up getting MPs in there too. Not sure how many articles there'd be, but there may well be enough for a separate stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
::Unionist would not be a good name for it because [[Unionist]] also has many different meanings, including the name of some Northern Ireland political parties and I agree that Labor/Labour should be avoided for the same reason. How many articles are there which would be stubbed with this, out of interest? -- [[User:Joolz|Joolz]] 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I'd forgotten about the Ulster Unionists... ''If'' it goes ahead, would {{tl|Union-bio-stub}} get around the name problem? Or would that be too ambiguous? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 13:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Union-bio would get round it yeah :) -- [[User:Joolz|Joolz]] 17:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'd be tempted to think that the {{tl|Union-bio-stub}} was about people on the [[Union (American Civil War)|Union]] side in [[War of Northern Agression]]. :) [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps something like {{tl|laborunion-bio-stub}}? It's longer, but it's probably less ambiguous. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::::And we're not only back at the labour/labor, but manage yet another US-centric proposed name even aside from that, since the UK term (at least) is Trade Union. - [[User:SoM|SoM]] 15:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
How about having these go into the {{tl|activist-stub}} proposal way down below with an option to split off if there are enough as {{tl|worker-activist-stub}}? I'll grant that it's a bit wordy and nonintuitive, but it does avoid the problems with both "labo[u]r" and "Union". [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
: I kinda like this... cuts down on the hyphenation creep. [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
:I like it too, and it avoids all the issues of the other proposed names. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 06:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::Sounds good - go for it! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
==Proposals, August 2005==
=== Stub confusion: Broadcast and TV stubs ===
From what I can tell from looking at the articles in the various broadcast and TV categories, many other editors are as confused about what should go into the different categories as I am, and looking at the information on the category pages does not provide any enlightenment IMHO. Seeing that there are 7 pages of TV stubs, and over 500 articles just in US broadcasting stubs, I think that a major reorganization may be in order. Here's just a rough idea of what I was thinking should be done:
*TV stations
*TV shows
*TV biographies
*Radio stations
*Radio programs
*Radio biographies
*Cable & satellite channels
*<s>Cable & satellite shows</s>
*Broadcast networks (any network--TV, radio, cable, etc.)
Many of these categories should get US & UK subcategories, and some may even need Canadian, Australian, EU, and Asian subdivisions. Many of the specialty broadcasting stubs (e.g. Star Trek) can probably stay, but some may need some changes (such as the soap opera character stub, which I think could be broadened into a general soap opera stub). At the same time, the reorganization could be used to drop some of the less useful broadcast stubs. Eventually we'll probably need an internet radio and even a podcasting stub category added as well. [[User:BlankVerse|<font color=green>''Blank''</font><font color= #F88017>''Verse''</font>]]<font color=#2554C7> </font>[[User talk:BlankVerse|<font color=#F660AB>∅</font>]] 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds like a very good idea. Ceyockey started to work on this sort of thing before he left WP:WSS to concentrate on other areas. A few questions/suggestions:
#would it be better to expand the soapchar stub into any stub relating to a fictional TV character, rather than expanding it into Soap operas in general?
#do we need the separate tv and radio biography stubs - wouldn't a lot of the people in there be better fitted into other categories such as actor-stub?
#I'm not entirely convinced by the cable & satellite show stub category. A lot of shows created and shown on cable TV are shown on terrestrial tv in other countries (here in NZ we get both ''Deadwood'' and ''Six Feet Under'' on free-to-air terrestrial, for example, but I think both were cable productions). I think those two categories could be happily subsumed by the TV stations/TV shows parents.
[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 14:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
re:Soap operas: I was only thinking that soap opera fans are just as fanatical as SF fans—they just haven't had time to invade the Wikipedia yet. Even if we don't have a general soap opera stub in the near future, I KNOW that we will have one eventually. I've got [[Sunset Beach (soap opera)|Sunset Beach]] in my watchlist only because it's based upon near where I grew up, and that show, which only lasted a couple of years, has gone from a sub-stub into a very long, involved explanation of all the soap opera machinations.
re:TV & radio bios: I was thinking that TV-bio would be everybody but the actors—i.e. news anchors, directors, writers, show creators, network executives, etc. As for radio personalities also being actors—that only happens here in LA (e.g. [[Steve Harvey]], [[Gary Owens]] of [[Laugh-In]], etc.).
re:cable shows: I did that out of symetry, but you are right. Even here in the US, there are cable shows that have a second life as on-air reruns, or are shown on both cable and as first-run syndication. [[User:BlankVerse|<font color=green>''Blank''</font><font color= #F88017>''Verse''</font>]]<font color=#2554C7> </font>[[User talk:BlankVerse|<font color=#F660AB>∅</font>]] 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:Thinking on soap opera characters some more...it's probably best to leave that stub. I'm sure that eventually we will end up with a plethora of articles on soap opera characters, and although many of the articles will grow to the same size as many of the articles on characters in [[Frank Herbert]]'s [[Dune (novel)|Dune]], many more will remain lowly stubs. [[User:BlankVerse|<font color=green>''Blank''</font><font color= #F88017>''Verse''</font>]]<font color=#2554C7> </font>[[User talk:BlankVerse|<font color=#F660AB>∅</font>]] 13:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
What I find remarkable is that there is no [[:Category:Media stubs]] with matching template. This category could be a parent category to {{tl|tv-stub}}, {{tl|news-stub}}, {{tl|broadcasting-stub}}, etc, and some kind of a doggybag for articles that fit in more than one of these stub categories. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 14:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
===Movie stubs===
*The film stub category is overloaded. Not to mention that categories [[:Category:Comedy films]] and [[:Category:Drama films]] are overloaded too. Movies that share those 2 genres have been separated in [[:Category:Comedy-drama films]]. I want comedy movie stubs and drama movie stubs. This way, the general comedy and drama movie stubs will reduce. --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:This idea has been debated here several times, but we've never reached a decision over it - we've had the ideas of splitting by genre, by decade, or by country of origin (some of the previous debate is in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive16#Split_of_.7B.7BFilm-stub.7D.7D|Archive 16]]. It really does need splitting though. if the main categories are most clearly split by genre, then perhaps that would be the best way. Perhaps
:*comedy-film-stub
:*drama-film-stub
:*sf-film-stub
:*biopic-film-stub
:*action-film-stub
:would be five logical splits. Any thoughts? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:: I think : crime-film-stub would be useful, too [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think I should start these stubs now! --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
: Dont't be hasty; give it a weeks time... :) [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
===splitting {{tl|UK-struct-stub}}===
This has about 1000 articles. Suggest splitting off some bits of it, but not clear which. [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 12:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
:London and Scotland would remove two large sections, I think. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
::I wasn't thinking geographically but more sort of church-stub etc but London and Scotland would be good idea, yes! [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 09:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
:There is a London WikiProject, so that one's definitely worth considering. Separating out buildings by use is viable, though - although that would need to tie in with all the struct-stub categories, so might need more thought. I could see a series of UK-church-stub, US-church-stub etc, and also UK-stadium-stub, Euro-stadium-stub, etc. The church one might be difficult, though, since it would be best if it covered all places of worship, not just Christian ones, so the naming of it might be a problem. I'd definitely go with London-struct-stub though - buildings by type could easily be split off that one later as well if necessary. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
:I spent a few days sorting {{tl|rail-stub}} articles into, among others, {{tl|UK-depot-stub}} which is already a subcategory of both {{tl|UK-struct-stub}} and {{tl|rail-stub}}. Many of the station articles had both rail-stub and UK-struct-stub, so sorting one also sorted the other; on articles that had both, I removed both and used the more specific stub category. I wouldn't necessarily object to sorting by ___location, but sorting by structure type seems more appropriate to me. [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 19:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Mmmm, maybe. I still think that having a WikiProject able to find buildings on the city it's working on might make a London-struct-stub useful. But there'd be nothing wrong with having a UK-church-stub with London-church-stub as a subcat of it, so perhaps that would be the way to go. Wish there was some better term than church, though, to cover all places of worship, not just Christian ones. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
===Scots Law Stub===
I '''propose''' the creaton of {{tl|scots-law-stub}} as I am increasingly finding more and more stubs on [[Scots law]] for [[law]] in [[Scotland]] and having to identify them as {{tl|law-stub}}. The Law stubs page is already massive. [[User:Davidkinnen|Davidkinnen]] 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
:How many of them do you think there are? I know Scots law is very distinctive, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few. And - although I can understand the reason for name you suggest - would there be any objections to Scotland-law-stub? (BTW - you might want to remove your sandbox from {{cl|Scottish law}}! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 10:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
My concern is that the {{tl|law-stub}} category is massive, and for people who may wish to edit stubs that are specific to a particlar legal system it may be more sensible to subdivide the whole lot into {{tl|common-law-stub}} and {{tl|civil-law-stub}}. [[User:Davidkinnen|Davidkinnen]] 09:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:Hm - that didn't really answer my question. If we assume that there are enough then - since it's true that Scottish law is unique - is the name Scotland-law-stub acceptable? It would be more in keeping with normal stub naming. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
::It would be incorrect, however. Surely the name of the stub should match the name of the system it's attached to? - [[User:SoM|SoM]] 14:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
::: I agree with SoM: Scots law is a term, not a classification. However, what about {{tl|civil-law-stub}}, {{tl|criminal-law-stub}}, {{tl|common-law-stub}}? [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
===US Politicians by State===
After noticing {{tl|Maryland-politician-stub}} and the huge bloated size of the main US politician stub category (around 2200 stubs), I thought I'd make a quick check to see how the numbers work out. Results are [[User:GeeJo/Stats|HERE]]. I moved through them rather quickly, so there is a margin of error built into the numbers, but they should be proportionally accurate given the size of the category. Which state do we want to stop at? [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] [[User talk:GeeJo|(talk)]] 01:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:FWIW, I use 75 for the state-geo-stub splits... so the borderline would be around the Alabama/Texas area. If you split down to 9and including) Texas, that would give seven more state-specific politician stubs. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::One of the editors involved in the [[WP:CAL|California WikiProject]] just created [[List of Speakers of the California State Assembly]], which, if fully populated, would add 50 more stubs to the 149 that already exist to California. Since he seems to be a bit of political junkie, I'm sure that a {{tl|California-politician-stub}} would be very useful. Also, there are probably more politicians in {{tl|US-bio-stub}} who haven't been categorized (and is another huge category that could probably have some state-bio-stubs created). [[User:BlankVerse|<font color=green>''Blank''</font><font color= #F88017>''Verse''</font>]]<font color=#2554C7> </font>[[User talk:BlankVerse|<font color=#F660AB>∅</font>]] 10:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
===A whole bunch of road stubs===
I'd like to have a whole bunch of stubs approved per the discussion under U.S. Highway Stub:
*{{tl|Canada-road-stub}}-created 20:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
*{{tl|Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub}} created 03:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
*{{tl|Maryland-State-Highway-Stub}} created 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
*{{tl|Michigan-State-Highway-Stub}} created 01:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
*{{tl|Nevada-State-Highway-Stub}} created 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*{{tl|New Hampshire-State-Highway-Stub}} created 02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
*{{tl|Missouri-State-Highway-Stub}} created 04:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if dashes are needed, or if I should use route instead of highway. However, {{tl|US-road-stub}} has over 600 articles in it, as does {{tl|road-stub}}. Something needs to be done about this... --[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]
I also need to add that {{tl|Kentucky State Highway Stub}} has been created (for its associated WP). --[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]
:In anwer to your question, ''theoretically'' they should have hyphens, but so far none of the other State Highway stubs do. I noted in a section further up the page that they're "in a list of stubs to take to sfd for renaming at some point". Personally, I'd prefer to see them shortened, too, perhaps to something like Maryland-SHwy-stub, but I might be in the minority. One more point - ''if'' they were to be hyphenated, it should be as xxx-statehighway-stub, and one of them would be NewHampshire-statehighway-stub (or possibly -StateHighway- ). Input is greatly needed here from other stub sorters! Canada-road-stub, though, is long overdue, and I've often thought of proposing it myself. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
:I too would like to see them hyphenated. at the very least, "stub" should be lowercase. Something of the form xxx-statehighway-stub would be my preference, as it fits best with the other stub categories. Shortened would be nice, but I don't thing there's any obvious way to abbreviate "State Highway"... --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 17:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
::How about {{tl|XX-st-hwy-stub}}, where XX is the two letter postal code for the state? It's fairly short, and consistent with other stub categories, no? Even shorter would be {{tl|XX-road-stub}} or {{tl|Xxxxx-road-stub}}, either of which is consistent with its parent {{tl|US-road-stub}}. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:::No, we don't use the two-letter U.S. postal abbreviations for stubs. Also, these are state routes, not just any ole roads in the state. (See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive4#U.S._Highway_Stub]] for more info.) — [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:Also, can we do something so that more WikiProjects are aware of this project? As a lot of them make stubs for their project, but usually any standardized names, and without this project knowing about them. It'd save alot of trouble discovering/renaming/deleting them... --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 17:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
::I'm considering starting a US Roads WP to coordinate the us road articles... and I'll try to say something about this WP if I do.--[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] 06:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'll start creating the stubs listed above soon (within next month)... I'm currently classifying the Interstate stubs right now. When I do create them I'll note it above and on the stub types page. I'll substitute hyphens instead of spaces for now for consistency... how do I create a stub redirect for WA though?.--[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] 00:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Simply move the template to a new title. The old name will automatically redirect to it (and don't do what I didthe first time I tried this - remember to specify that the new name is a template!) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
==Proposals, September 2005==
=== Jewish biography stub ===
Proposal by [[User:Nowhither|Nowhither]] 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC).
I propose the creation of a stub tag for biographies of Jews, tentatively called "Jewish-bio-stub". This would be for biographical stubs about people who are '''notable primarily as Jews'''.
This tag would be appropriate for a number of existing stub articles that have no meaningful biographical stub tag; that is, they either have the (relatively useless) "Bio-stub", or else no biographical stub tag at all. Some examples:
* [[Abraham ben Jacob]]
* [[Abraham Zevi Idelsohn]]
* [[Daniel Al-Kumisi]]
* [[Hai Gaon]]
* [[Henry Moscowitz]]
* [[Hiyya bar Abba]]
* [[Israel Isserlin]]
* [[Itzhak Stern]]
* [[Jason of Cyrene]]
* [[Jonathan Ben Joseph]]
* [[Jonathan ben Uzziel]]
* [[Judah Alkalai]]
* [[Mayer Amschel Rothschild]]
* [[Menachem Meiri]]
* [[Solomon Riemann]]
* [[Tiberius Julius Alexander]]
* [[Wilhelm Freund]]
* [[Yohanan ben Zakkai]]
* [[Yonatan ben Yosef]]
Other biographical stubs, that currently ''do'' have a meaningful bio stub tag, might still be candidates for "Jewish-bio-stub". For example:
* [[Avrom Ber Gotlober]]
* [[Jacob Rader Marcus]]
This last category includes some marked as "religious figures":
* [[Alexander Kohut]]
* [[Yaakov Chaim Sofer]]
I am aware that biographical stubs are traditionally sorted by either nationality or occupation, and being Jewish is neither of those. However, I think it is clear that this tag would be a useful way for editors to find articles to work on (which is the point of stub tags).
— [[User:Nowhither|Nowhither]] 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
:Wouldn't simply adding the already existing {{tl|JewHist-stub}} do the trick? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
::{{tl|JewHist-stub}} is not a biographical stub. It's semi-appropriate, of course, and, as my links above show, it is used. Similarly, we ''could'' mark all scientists with {{tl|Sci-stub}}, but we don't because we have a biographical stub: {{tl|Scientist-stub}}. Use of {{tl|JewHist-stub}} is very appropriate for articles like [[Second Temple Period]] and [[Government of ancient Israel]], but it is not quite optimal for stubs about ''people''. — [[User:Nowhither|Nowhither]] 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:<nowiki>:)</nowiki> Believe me, I know that. Which is why I said ''adding'' the stub rather that ''replacing''. Nationality and occupation are the usual ways to split people, and while I realise that the jewish faith is a specific case where a religion-bio-stub would make sense, I'm just a bit chary about setting a precedent that crosses other categories. Rather than being like marking scientists with sci-stub, it's more like marking relativity researchers with both physicist-stub and relativity-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, there has been one semi-negative comment here. That's it. ''I'' like the idea, and the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism]] was largely positive. So do I create the stub tag? I'm not sure .... — [[User:Nowhither|Nowhither]] 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
:Leave it for now - see if it gets further comments one way or the other. Sometimes these things percolate for a while before there's any definite decision. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
:BTW - though I realise the two categories are overlapping rather than in any way being near to identical, you might be interested that Israel-bio-stub is very likely to be created soon. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 10:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
===Stock exchange stubs (created as {{tl|stockexchange-stub}})===
The [[:Category:Economics and finance stubs]] is filled with articles about stock exchanges and indices (I hope to have the exact count finished by tomorrow). This leads me to propose a template {{tl|stock exchange-stub}} and a category that goes along with it. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:Like the idea, but not the name - losing the space to make stockexchange-stub would be better, but something else is likely to be better still... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
::I've now gone through [[:Category:Economics and finance stubs]] and [[:Category:Stock exchanges]]. So far, I've found 70 stubs articles relating to stock exchanges, 46 in [[:Category:Economics and finance stubs]] and 24 in [[:Category:Stock exchanges]]. So the size of the new stub category shouldn't be that much of a problem. What do you see as an alternative to {{tl|stockexchange-stub}}? I can't think of any. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:That's the problem. I had a nagging feeling that there was a better name, but couldn't put my finger on it. Perhaps stockmarket-stub? That would also allow for a slightly broader interpretation of what could be stubbed with it. I'm a little unsure of the difference though, and the Wikipedia articles are a bit vague, just saying that they're not the same thing, without really pointing out the differences. Or brokerage-stub - or is that too ambiguous? If the term bourse was wider used it would solve the problem, but it isn't. Perhaps it's best to go with stockexchange-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
::Another option might be stock-stub or stocks-stub, but that might be too ambiguous and might not be intuitive enough. I think stockexchange-stub is the most intuitive of all options (NY'''SE''', FT'''SE'''). I'll see if I can find a better option in the next few days. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
===More Musicians/Music Subcategory proposals===
To further reduce the overpopulation in the Musicians and Music stub categories, I'd like to propose a few more subdivisions:
* {{tl|Classical-musician-stub}}
* {{tl|Country-music-stub}}
* {{tl|Blues-stub}}
* {{tl|Gospel-music-stub}}
* {{tl|Folk-music-stub}}
The already proposed Hip-Hop stub will go a long way in the Musicians category as well.
Thanks for any feedback.
[[User:J. Van Meter|J. Van Meter]] 12:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
:I do think this will help the music category. Go for it. -[[User:Haon|Haon]] 13:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Although it might seem a little contrived, it'd be useful of all the genre stubs had the same number of hyphenations, so I'd suggest countrymusic-stub, gospelmusic-stub amd folkmusic-stub. Also, given the recent jazz-stub - which seems to include a lot of jazz musicians, perhaps {{tl|jazz-musician-stub}} would also probably be useful. The one problem I see with both that and classical-musician-stub, though, is that splitting of musicians so far has been by instrument rather than genre. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:- i'll do whatever you want with the hyphens. i didn't think there was quite the need to split the jazz musicians from the other jazz related stubs, although maybe, to be a purist, i should have. the problem i'm seeing w/ the musician-stubs split by instrument (as they are) is that people are getting lost within those categories. going on the assumption that the stub categories should be grouped to attrack the interest of potential contributors and editors, it seems to make the most sense to pull some of these folks into genre categories. someone willing to write about [[Bill Frisell]] for example, would be more apt to also write about [[Richie Powell]] or the [[Brecon Jazz Festival]], than say, about [[Jesse Pintado]]. i've been trying to chisel away at the musician stub category for several days already and it's just killing me that people like [[András Schiff]], [[Marcel LaFosse]], [[Papa Charlie McCoy]] and [[Ruth Laredo]] are jammed into a huge category with the likes of [[MC Chickaboo]], [[Flesh-n-Bone]], [[J-Kwon]], [[Fan 3]], and [[MC HotDog]]. :-[[User:J. Van Meter|J. Van Meter]] 01:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
::I must admit I'm not a fan of the "musician by instrument" categories myself - I feel that it would make more sense, say, to have Andre Segovia with Yehudi Menuhin than with Jeff Beck. It may be that some more thought is needed over the way musicians are being split - especially since you can get multi-instrumentalists. Mnd you, you also get people who perform in several styles, so I suppose it's not clear-cut either way. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
::: -I certainly don't think it's necessary to peel everyone out of the musicians category and put them all into a million ultra-specific sub-stub categories. As you mention, there '''is''' a lot of cross-over and gray area. I just think pulling some of the glaringly obvious ones out would be a fine improvement. Right now there is an opera-stub, an opera-singer-stub and a classical-composition-stub. So how 'bout for starters I do a {{tl|classical-music-stub}}. This will handle the musicians, as well as any composers, conductors and misc. historic figures. I think that will make for a decent sized category without the need for getting any more specific. (Opera singer stubs, for example aren't divided up for contraltos and tenors.) How does that sound? (No pun intended.)
::::[[User:J. Van Meter|J. Van Meter]] 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
:Genre is useful, but so is instrument. Personally I think {{tl|woodwind-musician-stub}}, {{tl|brass-musician-stub}}, {{tl|keyboard-musician-stub}}, and {{tl|string-musician-stub}} would all be useful. Those who are multi-instrumentalists in one genre would get just the one genre stub, those who are multi-genre artists on one instument (family) would get just the one instrument stub and those who play but a single genre on a single instrument would get both. After all, Wikipedia is not a tree.
::- at this point, after browsing through the current music and musician stubs for a while now, i just don't believe there are ''that'' many classical artist stubs there to warrant so many and such specific categories. [[User:J. Van Meter|J. Van Meter]] 14:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's another different but related idea: Both the music and musician stub categories are jammed up with record producers. So, how about {{tl|record-producer-stub}}? [[User:J. Van Meter|J. Van Meter]] 02:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
: I have also noticed many various non-musician but music-related people stubs. Something should be created for them. I'd suggest {{tl|music-bio-stub}}, in the same vein as film-bio-stub and poli-bio-stub, but it still sounds awful. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>[shallot]</small></small>]] 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Footyclub-stub}}===
The [[:Category:Football (soccer) stubs]] is getting seriously overpopulated. Most of the articles in the category are about football clubs. And since there already is a daughter category [[:Category:English football club stubs|English football club stubs]], I would like to propose new daughter categories of [[:Category:Football (soccer) stubs]]:
#{{tl|Africa-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:African football (soccer) club stubs]]
#{{tl|Asia-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:Asian football (soccer) club stubs]]
#{{tl|Euro-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:European football (soccer) club stubs]]
#{{tl|SAm-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs]]
#{{tl|US-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs]]
If there are any clubs (for instance from Australia or New Zealand) that are not covered by these categories, there are two options:
#They remain in the [[:Category:Football (soccer) stubs]]
#They are moved to a [[:Category:Football (soccer) club stubs]], which could then function as a parent category of the stub categories I proposed.
After this move, creating national daughter categories should be much easier, similar to what is happening with Geo Stubs.
I would also like to propose renaming {{tl|eng-club-stub}} to {{tl|eng-footyclub-stub}}. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
:Phase 2 of sorting out [[:Category:Football (soccer) stubs]] would be the creation of three other stub templates and categories ({{tl|footyorg-stub}} for national federations and continental confederations, {{tl|footystadium-stub}} for stadiums and {{tl|footyleague-stub}} for domestic and international leagues), but their viability can only be established once the club articles are moved to daughter categories. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
::Sounds good - though I think that the Euro category will probably need further splitting. I'd suggest a couple of minor changes though (my changes in italics)-
#{{tl|Africa-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:African football (soccer) club stubs]]
#''{{tl|AO-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:Asian and Oceanian football (soccer) club stubs]]''
#{{tl|Euro-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:European football (soccer) club stubs]]
##''{{tl|England-footyclub-stub}}'' (rather than Eng)
##''{{tl|Scotland-footyclub-stub}}''
#{{tl|SAm-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs]]
#''{{tl|Concacaf-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:CONCACAF football (soccer) club stubs]]'' (see note below)
##{{tl|US-footyclub-stub}} / [[:Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs]]
This divides up the soccer world in much the way that FIFA does (but combines Asia and Oceania, something which may happen yet with FIFA anyway). CONCACAF is the official FIFA term for North and Central America plus the Caribbean. A better name would be desirable here, if someone can think of one! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
:How about simply ''{{tl|NAm-footyclub-stub}}''? Central America is usually viewed as a part of North America and given a choice between only NAm and SAm, I know that I's include the Caribbean in NAm as well. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
::erm... excuse me for asking an impertinent question, but where abouts do you live? I only ask because I've never heard of Central America or the Caribbean being viewed of as part of North America. I think if you had a NAm-footyclub-stub, someone would come along very quickly and create CAm-footyclub-stub and Caribbean-footyclub-stub. I'd certainly never consider adding NAm-footyclub-stub to clubs in Jamaica, Honduras or the like. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 13:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:::The U.S., but I'm hardly alone in considering Central America as part of North America. To quote the first sentence of Wiikpedia's own article on [[Central America]], "''Central America'' is the region of ''North America'' located between the southern border of Mexico and the northwest border of Colombia, in South America." As for the Caribbean, I agree that it might require some patrolling to populate the stubs appropriately, but there shouldn't be all that many Caribbean footy stubs. Of course, the text of the stub should make it clear that Central America and the Caribbean are included. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion, between Caerwine and Grutness. Which brings the following thought to mind: wouldn't it be less ambiguous to sort by confederation, instead of by continent? This would mean that clubs from for instance Kazakhstan, Turkey or Israel would fall under {{tl|UEFA-footyclub-stub}}, while clubs from North and Central America and the Caribbean (and Guyana and Suriname from South America) would fall under {{tl|CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:Do many parts of the world think of [[soccer]] when they hear the term "footy club"? I think of [[Australian Rules football|Aussie Rules]] as "footy". --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] <sup>[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]</sup> 15:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
::The problem is that the [[Template:Football-stub]] is a redirect to [[Template:Footy-stub]] (there is no Template:Soccer-stub). And since the template is footy-stub, I think it's best to make this template use footyclub-stub, for the sake of consistency. Australian Rules football uses {{tl|afl-stub}}, American Football uses {{tl|Amfootball-stub}}. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
An elaboration of the above proposal on sorting by confederation instead of by continent: this proposal, if approved, would lead to six new stub templates: {{tl|AFC-footyclub-stub}}, {{tl|CAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{tl|CONMEBOL-footyclub-stub}}, {{tl|CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{tl|OFC-footyclub-stub}} and {{tl|UEFA-footyclub-stub}}. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:I like the idea as far as sorting is concerned, but the names aren't widely known to non-soccer fans. Also it leaves the problem of Oceania - almost all the (small number of) stubs for that will be Australian, and Australia is in the process of moving from OFC to AFC. I still think it would be better to combine those two regions (in terms of stubs). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that there seems to be little argument about Euro-footyclub-stub, US-footyclub-stub or Africa-footyclub-stub - even just splitting these three off will be very useful, so perhaps it's worth doing that for now and thinking some more about how to split off the rest. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you, and after 5pm CET I can help :) What about SAm-footyclub-stub, or for instance Brazil-footyclub-stub and Scotland-footyclub-stub? The Euro-footyclub-stub category will probably become large enough to already start thinking about split-offs. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 11:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
::They probably would be useful - but I'd stick with a few main ones first - that will at least empty the main category considerably, and will make it easier to work out where the next splits will be. It may be that you find yourself thinking "wow - a lot of these seem to be from Norway!" or something like that. I know from the geo-stubs that it isn't always the obvious places that have the most stubs. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 14:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I didn't find myself thinking that, I found myself being impatient ;) [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 16:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I have created euro-footyclub-stub, Africa-footyclub-stub and US-footyclub-stub. Australia doesn't have to be much of a problem: there are probably enough Australian clubs for an Australia-footyclub-stub template. For as long as Australia is under the OFC, it can be sorted under Oceania-footyclub-stub. When Australia moves to the AFC (I don't know when that will happen), it can be sorted under Asia-footyclub-stub. If Asia and Oceania are fully merged, we might retain both templates, but have them both feed into "Asian and Oceanian football clubs," or something to that extent, and delete "Asian football clubs" and "Oceanian football clubs." What also needs to be made very explicit, is that clubs from Israel, Turkey and Kazakhstan should get euro-footyclub-stub, because their national federations are UEFA members. After all, we follow the sports continents, not the geographic continents. (Right?) [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:Well, it certainly makes sense to do so in cases like this. With geo-stubs, we tend to overlap a bit, putting individula country categories into two continent parents where necessary, but given that the confederations make handy divisions, I don't think that's necessary here. It'll need a bit of wording in the category (and maybe the template) to make sure that countries are put into the right categories though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
*I have now gone through 1, 2, A, B and C of {{tl|footy-stub}} for Europe, the US and Africa. In that small group, there are already enough articles for {{tl|footystadium-stub}} and {{tl|SAm-footyclub-stub}} or {{tl|SouthAm-footyclub-stub}}. I would like to create and use those two stub templates in sorting out {{tl|footy-stub}} as well. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
**To that I would like to add {{tl|Sweden-footyclub-stub}} and {{tl|Scotland-footyclub-stub}}. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 22:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
::I feel like creating {{tl|Africa-footyclub-stub}} wasn't the best idea. I've gone through P-Z of {{tl|footy-stub}} but haven't run into a single African club article. At present there are 8 of them. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 07:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
*Sweden and Scotland, yes. Footystadium, I'm less keen on. Most stadia are multi-use, and we don't even use stadium-stub (although one of them might not be far off). Double-stubbing with struct-stub or one of its subcats would be of more use. Oh, and SouthAm is the more usual abbreviation we use here. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
::The splitting seems to be completed. There are 9 {{tl|Africa-footyclub-stub}}s. Maybe they should be returned to the parent category, and this template deleted? [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 13:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Mixed feelings. If the template indeed can't reach the threshold, it's best to delete it and <s>return the articles that use it to the parent category</s> move the articles that use it to {{tl|footyclub-stub}}, a daughter of {{tl|footy-stub}} and a parent of the continental club stubs. Because I'm not an admin, I can't delete the template, but as the template's proposer and creator, I will take care of <s>returning</s> moving them. However, I think it's too early to tell. I think it's best to give this one a chance. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 21:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
===UK Retail Stub===
How about a UK retail stub? Similar to the current retail one but with UK added to the name. [[User:Greaterlondoner|Greaterlondoner]] 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
:{{tl|UK-retail-stub}} could be useful... IIRC, though, we're dividing up retailers by type of business, rather than ___location, though I'm not 100% certain on that - anyone here involved in the retail-stub split care to comment? ''If'' we are dividing by ___location, this would definitely be a useful one. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
=== Writer Stubs ===
:''earler discussion on this subject is now archived)''
I just sorted through Ireland, and found 69 writer stubs in {{tl|Ireland-bio-stub}}, so I'll create the split in a few days barring any objections. I'll get to Norway, Poland, Russia, and Sweden as time allows. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 18:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:Just finished sorting Norway. I found only 53 writer stubs. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:Just finished Poland, enough to justify writers and several other stub sub types, see below for details. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 19:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:Just finished a census of Russia bio stubs, I found enough to justify writers and two other sub types, see below. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 06:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:Just finished sorting Sweden and found 73 writer stubs in the Sweden bio's so I'll create it in a week or so barring objections. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 05:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
===Splits of ({{tl|Academic-bio-stub}} and ({{tl|Reli-bio-stub}}===
Looking for outsize profession-stub categories, I've found these two, both now north of 800 stubs. If we split on country lines, it's likely to help with US-bio-stub; OTOH, splitting respectively by discipline (possibly) and religion (almost certainly) may actually be more attractive options. Canvassing opinions either way. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
:I've been randomly surfing through {{tl|reli-bio-stub}}, aselectly clicking on links, and I've come across many stubs about bishops. So I would like to bring up the possibility of {{tl|bishop-stub}}. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
:Update: Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " resulted in 92 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " gave me 83 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" "(to check for doubles with the two earlier queries) brought about 32 hits. This group of religious biographies has enough stub articles for a stub template and stub category, so I would like to officially propose {{tl|bishop-stub}} and [[:Category:Bishop stubs]]. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
:Ideally, names like Christian-bio-stub and Moslem-bio-stub would be best, but that doesn't specify that the bios are of people specifically connected to the church, so they're terms probably better avoided. 32 is a little thin - how about widening the bishop category a little and making it Clergy-stub, for all Christian clergy - bishops, priests, archbishops, etc? Also, would an Imam-stub for the Moslem equivalent be useful? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
::There are 32 ''doubles'' in the queries. This means that there are 60 unique bishop hits and 51 unique archbishop hits. This means that the bishop stub category will contain at least 111 articles. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 08:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps name them Christian-relibio-stub and Muslim-relibio-stub, to make it more clear that they're still religious biographies? Clergy-stub also sounds like a good idea. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:I've proposed a {{tl|Germany-academic-bio-stub}} down below to assist with sorting out {{tl|Germany-bio-stub}}. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Communication stub ===
Proposal by [[User:Rauh|Rauh]] 03:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC).
I propose a stub for topics on communication field of research and science. Many stubs that would fall in this category are assigned to psychology, political, linguistics etc. when the main research effort is done by communication scholars and publshed on communication journals. This spread of topics on other discipline stubs makes it hard for people who know the communication research ___domain to fill out these articles.
Some examples:
*[[Cultivation theory]]
*[[Hypodermic needle model]]
*[[Spiral of silence]]
*[[Uses and gratifications]]
*[[Knowledge gap hypothesis]]
*[[Two-step flow of communication]]
*[[Non-verbal communication]]
*[[Persuasion]]
*[[Maxwell McCombs]]
[[User:Rauh|Rauh]] 03:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that this would be very well-defined. In particular, none of the above articles have a common permanent category, or category parent in common; surely proposing that would be a logical first step? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is well defined since all of the above appear in any introduction to communication course or book, plus a lot of other related material. I was also following the logic of having psychology stubs, sociology stubs, etc. However, I can see your point on getting them under a category first. Still, I think that some would go under the existing comm theory category, others under communication category. I was thinking that the stub would provide a central place for all of those. What do you suggest that I do? [[User:Rauh|Rauh]] 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
What I haven't seen in this discussion, is a proposed template and matching category. So here is my proposal (or rather, my processing of the discussion above): {{tl|com-sci-stub}} / [[:Category:Communication science stubs]]. What I also haven't heard is an indication of how many articles would fit into this category. I don't think it will be hard to make this reach the threshold, but it's best to be on the safe side. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
:I think that the proposed template and category is interesting but it might need to be more general than that since a lot of communication research or studies are not scientific but humanistic (e.g. symbolic interactionism) and such, although it becomes somewhat blurred with Linguistics. Communication science might be a better defined ___domain.
:Is there any guideline to creating a count of articles that would fit in that category? There is a [[Communication basic topics]] page that cover many of the articles that would fit in there. The [[Communication studies]] article might also be informative. Can you please inform me a little more on how to compile this list/count? [[User:Rauh|Rauh]] 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
::Comm-sci-stub would be better that com-sci-stub, otherwise there'll be confusion with computer science. Actually, communication-sci-stub would be better yet, though probably not really necessary. ISTR there is already a com-stub, though (linking to {{cl|Telecommunications stubs}}). It sounds also like some of the stubs you're thinking of are alreadly listed as socio-stubs ({{cl|sociology stubs}}) and ling-stubs ({{cl|linguistics stubs}}). The best way to compile a count would be to go through the relevant stub categories that might have some of these articles and see what you can find. If there were 50 or more, then a separate stub type would definitely be viable. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
::: comm-stubs or comm-sci-stubs, of course. One of the reasons that I suggested the comm-stubs was exactly because many of the articles that would fall under this category are scattered around in {{cl|Telecommunications stubs}}, {{cl|sociology stubs}}, {{cl|linguistics stubs}}, {{cl|psychology stubs}} and {{cl|political stubs}}. But because these are communication topics they are less likely to be filled out by people checking those stub lists. I will go through them and compile a list of candidates to the new stub. [[User:Rauh|Rauh]] 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
After going through all the above stub categories here is a list of articles appropriate for a comm-stub or a comm-sci-stub:
#[[Access to knowledge]]
#[[Agenda setting]]
#[[Communication skill]]
#[[Communication skills]]
#[[Communication studies]]
#[[Construct validity]]
#[[Consumer science]]
#[[Conversation analysis]]
#[[Corporate media]]
#[[Credibility]]
#[[Cultivation theory]]
#[[Cultivation theory]]
#[[Discourse analysis]]
#[[Dyadic communication]]
#[[Emotional expression]]
#[[Emotional intimacy]]
#[[Emotional labor]]
#[[Expressive aphasia]]
#[[Global aphasia]]
#[[Gricean maxims]]
#[[Homophily]]
#[[Hypodermic needle model]]
#[[Informational society]]
#[[Interactionism]]
#[[Internet romance]]
#[[Interpersonal relationship]]
#[[Interpersonal skills]]
#[[Kinesics]]
#[[Knowledge gap hypothesis]]
#[[Long term relationship]]
#[[Long-distance relationship]]
#[[Manual communication]]
#[[Mass society]]
#[[Maxwell McCombs]]
#[[Media audience studies]]
#[[Media ecosystem]]
#[[Media ethics]]
#[[Media responsibility]]
#[[Metanalysis]]
#[[Nonverbal communication]]
#[[Operant behavior]]
#[[Persuasion]]
#[[Public speaker]]
#[[Revolutionary propaganda]]
#[[Selective distortion]]
#[[Spiral of silence]]
#[[Symbolic communication]]
#[[Teleimmersion]]
#[[Two-step flow of communication]]
#[[Two-way communication]]
#[[Uses and gratifications]]
[[User:Rauh|Rauh]] 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
To return to my "well-definedness" point; the thing is, none of the [originally] cited articles are in ''any'' pre-existing permanent communications category, and several of them are in ''distinct'' permanent categories. What I didn't realize at the time, however, was that there already in fact ''is'' a [[:Category:Communication]] (which would be one obvious place to start looking for perm-catted stubs). If what's being proposed is the stub counterpart of that, then fair enough (subject to a "viability count"), but I'm personally still not at all clear what the precise scope actually is, and I'm dubious about how consistently applied and "stable" the permanent category actually is. That is, are the majority of the articles with the intended scope already in that category, and if not, would catting them that way be clearly defined, generally agreed, and uncontroverial? If the overlap with media studies, linguistics, sociology, etc, is too high, or too debatable, then this may be more trouble than it's worth. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
(Made the above comment last night, didn't notice the resultant edit conflict. Some additional thoughts:) Thanks for doing the detailed count-down, Rauh. However, I still have concerns: Looking at a number of that list, it seems that this is more of a "cross-stubbing" than a stub-sorting proposal; the majority already have entirely reasonable-looking stub tags (and some already have two such); many already have permanent categories ''not'' included in the communications category hierarchy. Thus I think in a lot of these cases, adding "comm-stub" would be proposing significant additional category overlap, and restubbing them as such, category "drift". Mind you, I've never been a fan of the only one (or only two) stub tags notion, so that's not necessarily a bad thing as such, at least ''if'' the additional tagging is really likely to get those articles significant extra attention from "communications" people, rather than "linguistics" people, etc. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
: Alai, I can certainly understand your point and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that such a controversy runs inside communication research as well. Since communication is a "universalist" topic present in a lot of disciplines it becames difficult to categorize topics as "just" communication. Even definitions of such that most researchers agree are hard to come by. However, you must agree that there is certainly such a concept as "communication" and that there is a related field of study of "communication" and a more specific subdomain of "communication science" that takes as its subject matter the concept we are debating here. Social psychology and sociology suffer of the same problem on many domains. The fact that some pages are currently categorized under certain categories does not make that categorization right. I believe that the above pages would most correctly be categorized under communication studies (or science for most). With possible a second categorization with the topic of communication in consideration (e.g. Politics for Agenda Setting, possibly).
: Having said that, my point in suggesting the creation of a communications stub is that I firmly believe that editors who search a psychology (or politics, sociology, etc.) stub list will be less likely to fill out the above topics compared to editors who search a communications stub. The topics listed above are central to communication research but periferical to these other domains. I think that the goal here is to have these stubs filled out and getting them on a comm stub list might help in that process.
: One final argument that I have is that as I have been roaming through communication cateogory and communication research topics I have noticed that it is not well covered. There are inumerous topics that could be added. Most of the pages are of very bad quality and obviously edited by, alas, people with psychology and sociology background. My project is also to edit this content area somewhat and the stub, I hope, will help me get some more people involved in the process. Maybe I should start this the other way around and starting working on the topics and come back later for the stub, but since there are plenty of pages for this list I'd rather advance the process. [[User:Rauh|Rauh]] 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
::I'm inclined to support this, on the basis of the central/peripheral "acid test" you suggest. I'm not sure stub categories are much of a way in and of themselves of attracting editors out of a blue sky -- maybe you should look at a WikiProject:Communications? (Or Comm. Sci.) Certainly they're a facility for editors that are already so inclined. Good luck with your doubtless upcoming clashes with psychologists and sociologists -- alas. :) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
=== {{tl|Internet-bio-stub}} ===
I think we need a category for the many creators of notable websites, blogs, internet software, etc.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 15:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
: I agree, falls in line with radio-bio-stub which got a pass below. [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
===Headgear stub===
I think there is a need to create this stub. There are a large number of hat and headgear articles which could use expansion. The list of hats and headgear page is getting messy. [[User:Snafflekid|Snafflekid]] 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
*Hmmm - more to the point, {{cl|Fashion stubs}} is slowly getting towards the point of needing a split, and headwear (more precisely, headwear and hair styles) and footwear might be the two most obvious splits. Anyone keeping track of what the numbers are like in that category? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 03:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
*Headwear seems better than Headgear. there is a redirect from headwear to headgear now but I think the page should be renamed to headgear. Probably do it after hearing comments on the stub. [[User:Snafflekid|Snafflekid]] 04:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
===SAsia-stub===
Even if we went ahead and rounded this out with Nepal-stub and Bhutan-stub, there are enough pre-1947 partition stubs in just the history and writer stubs to make this a worthy category. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 16:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:Just created this. An inital exploration of {{tl|Asia-geo-stub}} added over 20 stubs, mostly, but not entirely Bhutanese as that's the only country in the region that doesn't have it's own stub. I also reset the names of the categories in the Asia stubs for Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to the -related versions. It's all well and good to plan to move over to the other, but it hasn't been done, so it makes it look like the sub types are empty when they aren't. (Left the cats themselves alone, just took their names off the list.) [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 02:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
:<s>Just make sure you leave them with the geo-stub tag too (it's how we work out whn to break out a new geo-stub category, and Bhutan's slowly progressing towards this</s> Hell's bells - I just realised who I'm talking to. You know all that. There should also have been a lot of Sri Lankan ones in there, as it doesn't have its own geo-stub either. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::Gah. Skip that - there's already a {{tl|SL-stub}}, of course. Perhaps I need to take a break! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Yup and {{tl|SL-stub}} is on my to do list of things to take to SfD since besides Sri Lanka, there is also a Sierra Leone. However, I already have too much stub stuff on my plate to want to do anything about it at the moment. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 21:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|language-bio-stub}}===
I believe a stub category for linguicists and people notable for documenting, exploring, etc specific languages or language in general would be useful.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 07:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
:Not certain about numbers, but if there were enough then {{tl|linguist-stub}} would be a better name. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 08:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
:Agree with linguist-stub, add other as redirect if it's useful for restubbing. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
::The problem with linguist-stub is that a lot of the people I have in mind aren't/weren't linguists in the scientific/academic sense, but are just notable for having been the first to document or write a comprehensive dictionary for a certain language. These were often missionaries or explorers.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 12:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I think "linguist" can be defined broadly enough to include any missionaries or explorers who were the first to document or write a comprehensive dictionary for a certain language. I'm for {{tl|linguist-stub}}. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 21:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Belgium-bio-stub}}===
I googled '''site:en.wikipedia.org "this biographical article is a stub" Belgium OR Belgian''' and got 64 hits; of the first 10, 8 would fit into this category; assuming this trend is continued through the rest of the hits we're looking at approximately 50-55 stubs in this category. I guess it's safe to assume that there are some stubs, which google did not find, since those words don't occur in the article for some reason, so there could even be more stubs in the category. The template already exists, but there is no category; and I'm assuming that whoever created the template did not propose it here first.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]]
:IIRC it wasn't, but it came up on the discoveries page and seemed like a good category. I don't remember abyone mentioning that the category didn't exist though. Go for it, I'd say! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 08:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
:The template already exists, there seem to be no objections, this fits in nicely... I suggest we speedy this one. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 17:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
===either {{tl|gang-stub}} or {{tl|street-gang-stub}}===
I've been finding a bunch of gang-cruft. The {{tl|crime-stub}} seems to be the most appropriate stub to add, but there is almost certainly enough articles for a gang-stub. See [[gang]], [[List of street gangs]], [[List of Los Angeles street gangs]], [[List of historical gang members of New York City]], [[:Category:Modern street gangs]], [[:Category:Historical gangs of New York City]], and the woefully inadequate [[List of motorcycle gangs]]. There are also dozens of other gang articles that are not yet in those lists or categories (see [[Maravilla]] and [[Black Angels]]), plus related articles such as [[Gang Signals]]. [[User:Kasper Gutman|Kasper Gutman]] 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
===More splits in mil-stub hierarchy===
*{{tl|US-navy-stub}}. There's at least 200 US Navy ship stubs in {{tl|mil-ship-stub}}, alone. (An immediate sub-cat of which would be another possibility; {{tl|US-mil-ship-stub}}?)
*{{tl|US-mil-bio-stub}}. In one case I found myself triple-stubbing something as {{tl|US-bio-stub}}, {{tl|US-mil-stub}}, and {{tl|mil-bio-stub}}, which is getting into set theory gone mad territory. And mil-bio-stub has about 920 stubs, so itself is in need of a split.
*{{tl|UK-mil-stub}}. Haven't done a count, but looks certain to be viable.
*{{tl|Germany-mil-stub}}. Lots of historical stuff (or should these be going into WW2 categories and such like?).
There are probably other feasible sub-cats that could be split out, these seem by eyeball to be the most pressing for starters. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
:I'm still a bit wary of the triple-hyphened ones, though I can see them coming in time (and we've got US-midwest-geo-stub and the like, so there is a precedent). US-mil-ship-stub could be quite useful, though.
:The UK and Germany categories are definitely good ideas, although also note that there is Nazi-stub. I can't remember the exact parameters for it, but it could well include all WWII Germany articles. And, as you said, there is a WWII-stub.
:As for US-mil-bio-stub, US-bio-stub and mil-bio-stub is probably enough for now - and no bio articles should get US-mil-stub (which isn't for people - people shouldn't be in any categories other than bio or occupation!) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 03:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
::Good points, thanks. The triple-hyphens are pretty ugly-looking, yeah, if anyone has any better names, fire away. Even without the triple-stubbing, though, the "US-mil-bio-stub" (in some form) one looks almost an inevitability, given the numbers. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
:{{tl|UK-mil-stub}} created, and (partially) populated. Now has "adopted" {{tl|RAF-stub}} as a sub-cat. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
===Split of {{tl|US-bcast-stub}}===
Now about 1000 stubs. Split out the radio stations and the TV stations? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 09:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
===Creation of {{template|UK-tv-channel-stub}}===
I'd like to create this template to aid in the improvement of articles about British television channels as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels]]. Currently most articles are tagged as {{template|UK-bcast-stub}} or {{template|TV-stub}}. This template would move them into a single category, which would then categorise as a subcategory of the categories linked to by both of these.
Suggested text:
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">[[Image:Union jack tv.png|40px| ]] ''This article on a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[television channel]] is a [[Wikipedia:stub|stub]]. You can [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|help]] Wikipedia by [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]''. </div>
[[User:MrWeeble|<span style="color:#008040;">Mr</span><span style="color:#007FBF;font-weight:bold">Weeble</span>]] <small>[[User talk:MrWeeble|Talk]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels|Brit tv]]</small> 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
*I'm not convinced you're going to get 50 or more stubs in that category. At the moment, British broadcasting stations are covered by UK-bcast-stub, which has under 350 stubs, most of which are radio stations. I doubt if there are more that 20 UK TV station stubs in there, so a separate category seems unnecessary. The again, if some of them are incorrectly marked with TV-stub, and there ''is'' a wikiproject, and there's talk above of splittng up US-bcast-stub... hmm. Anyone? (Nice icon, BTW) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I think there is a good chance it could get to 50, (I haven't actually counted) as if you look in [[:Category:British television channels]] there is a fair few articles there, and many, if not more than half are stubs all tagged differently, some untagged. Plus many more will be added (look at all the red links on [[List of British television channels]]). Cheers about the icon ;) [[User:MrWeeble|<span style="color:#008040;">Mr</span><span style="color:#007FBF;font-weight:bold">Weeble</span>]] <small>[[User talk:MrWeeble|Talk]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels|Brit tv]]</small> 16:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
===Athletics Stub===
Evening, can we have an Athletics stub so the 1500m, 100m hurdles, 200m hurdles, 400m hurdles, 800m hurdles and any other newly created articles that come under the heading of "athletics" (there are hundreds) can have it's stub. [[User:Cokehabit|Cokehabit]] 15:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
:At first wink, I approve: there's over the "magic" 800 in {{tl|sports-stub}}, and athletics must be one of the more significant "unsplit" sub-cats. On the other hand... hundreds? I'm dubious there's that many, do you have a rough count? Of existing articles, that is, not counting the "bios". And secondly, in the US the terminology would be "track and field", so if we go ahead with the name as suggested, doubtless a Commonwealth English putsch will be called on us later. (Though that ''does'' seem to be the terminology used in the permanent category, so what the heck.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
::This looks like a very good idea, and I'd wager that there are three figures' worth of stubs (though "hundreds" migh be a bit of hyperbole). As Alai has pointed out, though, there are different meanings of the term "Athlete" in different parts of the world. It'll be necessary to state on both template and category that it's for Track & Field athletics. {{tl|athletics-stub}} is still a viable name if the template is worded properly, but perhaps {{cl|Track and field athletics stubs}} will be needed for the category. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 02:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 12:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
===Writer Stubs===
After going through much of the 9 pages of writer stubs, I think that there are justifiable numbers to create {{Roman-writer-stub}} and {{Greek-writer-stub}} (or perhaps just {{Ancient-writer-stub}}, as well as {{SAmer-writer-stub}} or something similar for all the Colombian, Chilean, Argentinian, Brazilian, etc. writers.
* I just realized there's no Ancient Roman stub category for anything else. Scratch just the writer stub, let's have {{Roman-bio-stub}}, to cover generals and orators and senators and such. <small>(written by [[User:Bonsai Viking]])</small>
**If you look a bit further up this page at [[WP:WSS/P#Historical_regions.2Fcountries_bio_stubs_.7B.7BAncient-Rome-bio-stub.7D.7D]], you'll see this one's in process at the moment! Ancient-writer-stub's not a bad idea, mind you, though it's likely to be a problem for two reasons: foirstly it could take everyone from China to Africa and beyond, and second I suspect that it will overlap considerably with philosopher-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 08:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
* There is a {{tl|Roman-stub}} and a {{tl|Ancient-Greece-stub}} in the history section, neither of which are overly large at the moment. The writer stubs are in the process of being recatted into the 9 new sub categories created just yesterday. If it keeps at this pace, I think writer stubs will no longer be a very large category very soon (it's already down to 8 pages). So I don't see the need to avoid double stubbing by adding a new stub cat for them just yet.
:I've been keeping a reasonably careful count, and by that count there are not yet 50 South American writer stubs, though I may encounter some more as I go through the new blue links I've been finding while restubbing the writer stubs. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 09:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
*I suggest SAm-writer-stub instead of SAmer-writer-stub? [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 17:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
**The equivalent geo-stub and bio-stub both use SouthAm, so I'd suggest SouthAm-writer-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
*By my count there are 49 stubs currently in {{cl|Writer stubs}} that could go into a {{cl|South American writer stub}}. However, writer stubs are now under 600, so I don't see the need to be aggresive in category creation right now, particularly when all this would do would be substitute one pair of double stubs with another. Writer stubs can afford to wait for additional sub-catting until they start to exceed the <800 bin again. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
===Activism Stubs===
--[[User:Naught101|naught101]] 01:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
there are plenty of pages on vaious types of activism, I would suggest that these go under politics. I'm not sure if ''activists'' should also go under ''activism,'' or have its own stub type. I will come back and add the numbers that I can find for each type, and there are probably more type that these. I would suggest among others:
*{{tl|Political-activism-stub}}
*{{tl|Enviro-activism-stub}}
*{{tl|Queer-activism-stub}}
*{{tl|Peace-activism-stub}}
*{{tl|Social-activism-stub}}
*{{tl|Feminist-activism-stub}}
:(I slightly reorganised the above, since they're easier to debate in one load) I strongly doubt you're going to find more that 60 stubs for each of these - and several of these are already well covered by other stub types ({{tl|LGBT-stub}} and {{tl|fem-stub}}, for instance). Tentatively I'd support one overall {{tl|activism-stub}} and a separate {{tl|activist-stub}}, although in each case you may be very much in danger of the same sort of POV issues with those templates as with the recently declined terrorist-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
::I would definately find an {{tl|activist-stub}} for political activists as a daughter category of {{tl|poli-bio-stub}} useful. There are already several activists in that category.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:Starting off with just {{tl|activism-stub}} and {{tl|activist-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Atleast the POV issues would be less than terrorist-stub, I'd hope. Also, "queer" is offensive to some, so that name would be less than desirable. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|child-lit-stub}}===
While doing the writer subcatting I would try to add an appropriate genre cat, if a writer concentrated in particular genre. There was one category in particular that I repeatedly wanted and wasn't available, and that was for children's literature. Should also help to slim down {{tl|lit-stub}} which is overly large. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 02:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:Well, having heard no objections, I went ahead and created this one. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 03:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Australia-struct-stub}} and {{tl|India-struct-stub}}===
A ''little'' light on the ground in each case, but by far the biggest single countries not to have separate categories in {{cl|Buildings and structures stubs}}, with close to 50 stubs each. There seem to be quite a few more marked just with {{tl|Australia-stub}} and {{tl|India-stub}}, too. If that's not enough, making an overall {{tl|Oceania-struct-stub}} might be an option, since that well over 50 (there are about a dozen struct-stubs from New Zealand and the Pacific islands to add to the Aussie ones). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
: '''No''' and '''Yes''' Neither {{tl|Australia-stub}} nor {{tl|struct-stub}} are so large as to warrant forcing the issue before there are actually 60 known stubs. However, with {{tl|India-stub}} at '''6 pages''' presently, I wouldn't mind being aggresive in making an {{tl|India-struct-stub}}. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 19:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
::Looking through the various city-specific stub tyes for Australia, there may be close to 200 articles that could use Australia-struct-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:OK - I've made the India one - I'll leave the Aussie one for now, though I still think it would be very useful. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 11:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
===<s><nowiki>{{service-stub}}</nowiki></s> {{tl|service-corp-stub}}===
A brief glance at the {{tl|corp-stub}} listings suggests that a group parallel to {{tl|retail-stub}} but for those companies that sell consumer services instead of consumer goods would be a useful subcategory. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 20:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:It needs a better name than this though - my first thought when I saw ''Service-stub'' was "how would that differ from mil-stub?" Service-corp-stub might be better. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
::I'll concede the point, but that suggests we might want to consider renaming {{tl|retail-stub}} to {{tl|retail-corp-stub}} for consistency. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 00:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:::good point. It probably should be renamed for consistency. Retail-stub also suggests that it could relate to the actual running of retail businesses, which (AFAIK) it doesn't. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
===More Math stubs===
I've had another look at the Mathematics stubs, after using the new categories (see above), to reduce the number to around 800. There are some more stub categories that might be useful to reduce that a bit further. I've done a count of the first page, and the most common ones are [[Number theory]] (12 articles), [[Applied mathematics]] (17 articles) and [[Category theory]] (10 articles). If that is typical for all 4 pages that would give 48 articles, 68, and 40 respectively. That might not be representative, as I removed about 30 articles from the first page in the middle of sorting, and the first page is what is left after that. Given that, we can predict a similar removal for the other pages removes about 100 articles, giving about 700, or 3.5 pages. This predicts 42, 60 and 35 articles. I've made a subpage with a list of the entries I've categorised: [[User:Silverfish/Math Categories]]. The Other category is for entries I've not given a category. Some might fit into existing or proposed category. There are almost 100 articles in that category, so categorising those might up the number a bit.
I think the case for [[Applied mathematics]] is pretty compelling, but I'm not sure about the other two.
There also the issue of the Geometry stubs category, which has grown to about 360 articles. I've been including the more Geometrical seeming bits of Topology in there, but has been big for quite a while. I don't have any suggestions for how to sort it. Any ideas would be appreciated. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
: I would like to see some concrete examples of new math stub types. By the way, we should give Silverfish a big thanks, for he was constantly on my watchlist lately classifying the math stubs. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] 01:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'jm proposing [[Applied Mathematics]] ({{tl|Appliedmath-stub}} or {{tl|Mathapplied-stub}}), and tentatively proposing [[Category theory]] ({{tl|Cattheory-stub}}), and [[Number theory]] ({{tl|Numtheory-stub}}). Number theory might be a bit tricky with the overall with the Number stubs, but the ones I've counted are aren't about specific numbers or types of number. I haven't proposed anything for Geometry, as that's more of an aside. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 09:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
: Fine with me. If a category of stubs is too big, the best thing to do is to split it into smaller more specific stub categories. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I've had a look at Geometry stubs, and just from the names, a lot seem to be [[polyhedron|polyhedra]], in the 3 dimensional sense. I'll propose {{tl|Polyhedron-stub}}, which should remove a lot from the Geometry stubs category. This would cover articles about particular polyhedra. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 23:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|entertainer-stub}}===
Basically a catch-all stub type for people like magicians, circus performers, puppeteers, and ventriloquists who make their living by entertaining, but don't really fit into any of the existing occupation stub types. I've come across several that have been shoehorned into actor as I've been sorting those stubs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see others are ill-placed elsewhere. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 23:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
===Actor stubs===
I've been sorting through the actor stubs and I've gotten about halfway through and assuming current trends hold I think I can safely say the following:
# There will be more than enough stubs to justify a {{tl|Japan-actor-stub}}.
# No other country that does not already have a category will have over 50 stubs in {{tl|actor-stub}}, meaning that country based splits alone will still likely leave {{cl|Actor stubs}} over the <800 mark.
# The American actor stubs will be well over 10 pages when I'm through, meaning that a gender split between male actors and actresses would not solve the problem.
To solve the American actors problem, I recommend the following four stub types be created:
# {{tl|US-film-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their acting in films.
# {{tl|US-theat-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their acting on stage.
# {{tl|US-tv-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their acting on television.
# {{tl|US-voice-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their voice acting.
In addition a {{tl|voice-actor-stub}} to serve as a second parent for {{tl|US-voice-actor-stub}} would also enable voice actors outside the US to be identified. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
:The sub-cats for the USians seems like a sound idea to me. I'm less keen on {{tl|voice-actor-stub}}: I'd rather be a little more proactive in creating "modest-sized" national categories for in the 30-50 size range, or if necessary, some regionalised grouping (with suitable redirects, to make the naming pattern a little more intuitive). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::There are quite a number of persons whose only or primary credits are for what they've done as voice actors for animation and/or scripted radio. There are close to 700 articles in {{cl|Voice actors}}, a fair proportion of those are stub articles about people who work primarily as voice actors. There's even an internet database for voice actors similar to IMDB called the ''Voice Chasers Database'' and we even already have a temple {{tl|voice actor}} to access it in the same manner as {{tl|imdb name}}. The templates {{tl|film-bio-stub}}, {{tl|theat-stub}}, {{tl|tv-bio-stub}}, provide a way to generally indicate actors in the other three fields, but there doesn't really exist one for voice actors, which is why I'm proposing it. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I would really support the idea of a {{tl|Japan-actor-stub}}. I was looking for one today, so I hope you create this stub. [[User:SailorAlphaCentauri|SailorAlphaCentauri]] 04:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
All six stubs are now active. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 22:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:Urk. Does one proposal and one objection rise to the level of a consensus? The net effect of this creation and population of {{tl|voice-actor-stub}} seems to be pretty much just as I'd feared: we have a second sub-categorisation of actor-stub that cuts right across the primary one, to wit, a slew of voice-actors with ''no'' categorisation by nationality. What was wrong with doing this strictly as a tertiary sub-category, for those ''national'' actor subcats that were themselves over-sized (or at least, large enough to be splittable)? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, {{tl|voice-actor-stub}} is not the first genre cut. In theory, if not necessarily actual practice, actors that worked only on tv or film are supposed to be in {{tl|tv-bio-stub}} or {{tl|film-bio-stub}} respectively. Also, as I mentioned, there is demonstrable interest on the part of some people that is confined to just voice actors. Finally, national cuts only were insufficient to get actor-stub to the <800 level. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 19:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Short-story-stub}}===
As I sort the {{tl|lit-stub}} beast, I notice that most of the works of literature (as opposed to genres, classifications, modes, etc. which belong in lit-stub) that are not currently categorizable are short stories. Many already have page titles of the format Title_(Short_story). Propose {{tl|Short-story-stub}} as a child of {{tl|Lit-stub}} to deal with these. [[User:BonsaiViking|BonsaiViking]] 15:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
: How does this proposal intersect with the proposal above for {{tl|child-lit-stub}}?
*This is a split by form -- many other sub-types are by genre (although many of those are under {{tl|book-stub}}, which is more or less by form). In theory all the detail under book-stub could be duplicated under Short-story-stub, or perhaps better things like {{tl|SF-stub}} and {{tl|Fantasy-stub}} could feed into both {{tl|book-stub}} and {{tl|Short-story-stub}}. We do need a way to handle articles about individual short stories. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
*Wouldn't simply {{tl|story-stub}} be easier? Otherwise there will be arguments over whether something qualifies as a novella. Story-stub could be for anything that doesn't take up a whole book - and could even include things like fables and parables that it might be a stretch to add under the "short story" tag. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
**{{tl|story-stub}} per Grutness makes sense to me. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
*** It would also be nice to include short-story-collections here(only in the category, not the stub-name) [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 11:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*No other arguments, then, I'll create {{tl|Story-stub}} under {{tl|Lit-stub}}, which seems to be the consensus.
===More actor stubs===
Just finished sorting {{tl|actor-stub}}. Everything indicates that the six stub types I proposed above will all be nicely populated. No further country based spilts meet the 60 stub rule based on the stubs in just actor-stub, but Germany and Ireland both have over 40 and might be able to reach 60 if someone were to sort their national bio stubs looking for them.
If HK, Taiwan, and the Mainland were combined into one cat, it would have 51 Chinese actor stubs, with 38 of those being HK. Since I expect that separating out the Japan and voice actor stubs will bring actor stubs to <800 or below, I don't see the need to rush and create a single cat, but I won't object if someone were to create it instead of waiting for Hong Kong actor stubs to reach 60.
Finally, while I will wait until I have the "hard" numbers to back it up, I suspect that a {{US-porn-actor-stub}} would easily have 36+24+36 stubs. So I think it's worth considering if American actor stubs remains above the <800 level after doing the four cats mentioned above. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:I looked through about half of Ireland-bio-stub, and found a handful, double-stubbing them for now. I'd be inclined to go ahead and create {{tl|Ireland-actor-stub}} in the name of getting the rather large root cat somewhat more down to size. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::Just finished sorting {{tl|actor-stub}} to use the new categories. It's down below 800, but just barely. The largest group is some 201 stubs for which there is insufficient to subcategorized based on the data in the stub alone. The countries with more than 40 stubs are Germany (52), Hong Kong (40), Ireland (44), and Italy (40). I'll do a looksie through those four countries bio stubs to see if there are any that could be called actors and bring the total over 60 for them. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 03:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Just finished sorting {{tl|Hong-Kong-bio-stub}} and found exactly 20 stubs to add to {{tl|actor-stub}}. That just barely gives Hong Kong the necessary 60. I'll get to the other three tomorrow unless someone else gets there first. Good night! [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 04:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Take a look [[#German bio stubs|below]] and you'll see that I found enough stubs to raise German actor stubs to 61. Next up is Ireland in my search. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 02:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Just finished with both Ireland and Italy. In both cases, I wasn't able to raise my totals above 50 stubs, so I definitely won't be supporting the creation of either an Irish ao an Italain actor stub right now. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 18:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|reli-struct-stub}}===
There's already a {{tl|church-stub}} (see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#.7B.7Bchurch-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Category:Church_stubs|Discoveries]]) for Christian churches/religious buildings, but there are well over a hundred stubs on religious buildings for other religions. I've been going thru subcategories of [[:Category:Religious buildings]], and Buddhism has 46, Shinto 18, Sikhism 4, and Hinduism 37. <s>An earlier count for Islam found 34</s>. Most are inconsistently marked, too. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:More counts: Judaism has 12, and Islam now has 43. There are also 6 other ones for assorted religions. ([[User:Mairi/Religious structures stub count|List by religion]], for those curious.) --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 22:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|ws-stub}}, {{tl|conlang-stub}}, {{tl|pc-stub}}===
I'd like to reduce the load of {{tl|lang-stub}} by creating stub categories for [[writing system]]s, [[constructed language]]s, and [[pidgin]] and [[creole language]]s. The {{tl|ws-stub}} category would also be for articles about individual letters of alphabets and the like. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:{{tl|conlang-stub}} tentatively sounds like a good idea - how many such stubs do you think there are? The other two need more clear names. The stub for writing systems and such definitely sounds good; perhaps just {{tl|writingsystem-stub}}? How many pidgin and creole language stubs are there, as [[:Category:Pidgins and creoles]] (and subcategories) has just over 100 articles? --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
::Well, just looking through the letter A of [[:Category:Language stubs]] I found 4 that could go into {{tl|conlang-stub}} and 7 that could go into {{tl|pidgin-creole-stub}} (if you like that name better). Extrapolating from that I estimate 70 in conlang and 100 in pidgin-creole. Keep in mind a lot of these stubs are not otherwise categorized. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 22:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Those would be big enough then. {{tl|pidgin-creole-stub}} works for me, even tho it's not our standard hyphenation. (Looking at the main categories was a just a quick way for me to guess at the size, without repeating any counting you might've done.) --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I would be extremely leary of extrapolating from a sample chosen based on the initial letter of the article name. It makes the assumption that all the subtypes will have the same distribution over all letters as the combined group and that is decidedly a wrong assumption when considering splits of sub types by nationality. I don't know if that is a wrong assumption for this case, but it is not wise to assume sampling the A's of any group will give an accurate extrapolation of group. However, a quickie sample of 44 stubs in the language stubs that I just did chosen in a uniform manner to avoid that problem came with 9 that word go into writing systems, 5 into pidgins and 5 into constructed languages. That gives an extrapolation of a little over 80 for both conlangs and pidgins, so while both our efforts no doubt contain error, there's enough to convince me that the proposed groupings have enough stubs to justify creating them if you want to go to the effort. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::::You'll notice I didn't extrapolate by taking the number of stubs in A and multiplying by 26! But I am willing to go the effort, partly because something sticks in my craw about having a stub about a letter of the alphabet called a "language stub". --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 06:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::Definitely not {{tl|pc-stub}} or {{tl|pc-lang-stub}}: it's not clear from the template titles that it's about pidgin and creole languages. It could just as easily be about personal computing languages, politically correct languages, [[Proto-Celtic language]]s, or any other term abbreviated to [[pc]]. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 22:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:::How about {{tl|writingsystem-stub}}, {{tl|constructed-lang-stub}}, and {{tl|pidgincreole-lang-stub}}? Or if the last is too long, {{tl|p&c-lang-stub}} (since other things abbreviated PC can't be "P and C")? --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I think {{tl|conlang-stub}} would be fine too, as it isn't ambigious and I think it's a fairly common term. I don't care too much for p&c-lang-stub, tho. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 23:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I've now created {{tl|writingsystem-stub}}. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 15:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I've now created and populated {{tl|conlang-stub}} and {{tl|pidgincreole-lang-stub}}. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 10:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|gmc-lang-stub}}, {{tl|rom-lang-stub}}, {{tl|ii-lang-stub}}===
I'd also like to reduce the load of {{tl|ie-lang-stub}} by creating stub categories for the [[Germanic languages]], the [[Romance languages]], and the [[Indo-Iranian languages]]. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 21:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:I'm skeptical about the need for these, and whether there are enough for all 3, as {{tl|ie-lang-stub}} only has 198 stubs. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 23:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed - I don't see the need to split the Indo European stubs. Only if there were a WikiProject associated with one of the proposed subtypes could I see the desirability at this point. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
:::The problem with looking only at {{tl|ie-lang-stub}} is that there are still a whole lot of Indo-European languages in {{tl|lang-stub}}, and most of them are Romance, Germanic, or Indo-Iranian. I am confident that if {{tl|gmc-lang-stub}}, {{tl|rom-lang-stub}}, and {{tl|ii-lang-stub}} get implemented, there will be at least 60 articles listed in each of those as well as in the parent {{tl|ie-lang-stub}}. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 06:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I just stubsorted B and C of [[:Category:Language stubs]], and [[:Category:Indo-European language stubs]] is already up to 209 from 198. If I go all the way to the end of [[:Category:Language stubs]], there will probably be over 250 articles in [[:Category:Indo-European language stubs]]. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
===More computer and video game stubs===
:''moved to correct place on page [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]]''
I have just gone through all CVG stub articles from K through Z and applied the appropriate genre or corporation tags. A through C appear to have been done by somebody else, too. This has removed about 500-600 articles from the main category, but when done, will probably not be enough to reduce the total amount to under 800.
From my observations during this fun, yet mind-dulling work, I have noticed articles that need different sub categories. Therefore, I propose the following:
*{{tl|cvg-fict-stub}}, which would deal with ALL fictional elements in computer and video games, including characters, locations, races, groups, everything. There's lots of these articles out there.
*{{tl|cvg-bio-stub}}, for all articles related to biographies on CVG people (designers and musicians, mostly) A CVG musicians stub already exists, and should become a redirect to here, IMO.
*{{tl|action-cvg-stub}}, to supplement the previous genre list, basically for all games that don't fall under previous categories. Normally I would find the term too vague, but it seems to be necessary.
Other articles not covered here seem to include gaming websites, magazines, hardware (controllers, systems, etc), software (emulators, map editors, engines, etc), gaming terminology, and...I think that's about it. I'm not sure if any of these are common enough to warrant individual stub categories, but they may be worth keeping in mind for the future. Opinions? --[[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
As there appear to be no objections after one week, I shall proceed in creating these stubs. [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 12:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
===African Union stubs===
:''moved to correct place on page [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]]''
I think it's time the african union had there own stubs in the same manner as the European Union. I direct you to the articles Court of African Justice, or Permanant Representitives Committee for examples. Something along the lines of {{AU-stub}} would be nice. [[user:Briaboru|Briaboru]] 17:30 26 September 2005
:Why? How many stubs already in existence are there that would fit here? Considering that {{tl|Africa-stub}} is not overful, I fail to see the need given that a quick glance indicated that few if any of those stubs would relate to the AU. The standard for creation is usually a minimum of 60 existing stubs, [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::I agree - Africa-stub isn't overpopulated, so there's no real need. In any case, AU would be an inappropriate name (it's the ISO code for Australia, and could also easily stand for astronomical units or gold). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 11:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
===Pop Culture or Fad stubs===
:''moved to correct place on page [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]]''
You will have to excuse my ignorance; I am a newbie at all of this. I have taken an interest in Pop culture and Fads and categorizing and creating articles for these categories. I think a fad or pop culture stub would be appropriate. Obviously a pop culture stub would cover the fad one too, so probably the better choice. Here are a few that I've picked out, but I've run across many short articles, and plan on at creating more stubs as well. I realize that some of these articles have other categories, but I feel a pop culture stub could create a more appropriate response for many of the articles. For example, you can put pet rock under toys, but people interested in pet rocks would more than likely be so due to its pop culture impact. Yes? no? I don't know how to make a stub either. So if Yea, then maybe one of you oldtimer wizzes can do that for me. If not, I will look it up :D
*[[mood ring]]
*[[pet rock]]
*[[Toga party]]
*[[chia pet]]
*[[hypercolor]]
*[[food faddism]]
*[[Razor_(scooter)]]
([[User:Wrinehart|Wrinehart]] 07:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC))
*Mmmm. this one ''might'' get to 50 stubs - and for the life of me I can't think of what other stub would be used for them. So ''tentatively'', I'd support it. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 11:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
*As an additional note, I only began categorizing fads under pop culture by decade two nights ago. Since then there have been at least two other folks categorizing this way as well. I think the stub could expand the pop culture area of Wikipedia. :) ([[User:Wrinehart|Wrinehart]] 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC))
:* I don't believe this is a necessary stub category. There already is a {{tl|culture-stub}}. And there are plenty of other categories (fashion, games, food, dance, toys, vocabulary, music) that would cover most anything falling into "popular culture". Also, to my mind, several of the articles listed here, while slight, hold their own as articles, not stubs, and are best left in their current categories. [[User:J. Van Meter|J. Van Meter]] 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
::*You do not believe there would be a significant number of people interested in Pop Culture type articles specifically, and want to expand on these? Culture is a very broad area, whereas a pop culture stub would cover a large variety of topics and is still nowhere near as specific as some of the proposed stubs I've seen. [[User:Wrinehart|Wrinehart]] 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
:::* I'm sure there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are "interested in Pop Culture type articles." But we don't judge or approve stub template proposals by the number of interested users. So far, only 7 articles have been mentioned that could use this stub. I'm not asking you to name every single article that could possibly use this template, but what I haven't heard in this discussion is an indication of how many pop culture or fad stub articles Wikipedia currently has. Will this stub template/category reach the threshold of roughly 50 to 60 articles? [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 13:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|US-navy-stub}} vs. {{tl|US-mil-ship-stub}}; {{tl|RN-ship-stub}}===
Already proposed above, and no strident objections, but I haven't gotten around to doing either, or indeed actually deciding which. I'd be inclined to go with the latter, simply because it'll be a pretty large category in and of itself, without throwing in "other" US Naval stubs besides, and to preserve them within the current sub-tree (well, sub-[[Directed acyclic graph|dag]], actually, but...) of the hierarchy they're in at present: {{tl|mil-ship-stub}}, which itself is over 700 stubsworth. Similarly, there are more than enough for "Royal Navy ship stubs" -- in fact, there's plenty for ''two'' categories, should anyone prefer to have {{tl|HMS-ship-stub}} and {{tl|RFA-ship-stub}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
:If we're going for stubs with abbreviations for specific branches of military, could use {{tl|USN-ship-stub}}. Do any other branches of the US military have ships, besides Navy and Coast Guard? What about for the British military? --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 21:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::The US '''Army''' has some ships of its own for transporting its stuff from one place to another without having to depend upon the good graces of the navy, and it operated the riverine warcraft for a during the early part of the US Civil War before the Navy took those vessels over. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Despite the extra hyphen, I think I'd feel happier with US-mil-ship-stub and UK-mil-ship-stub. It has the advantage that if we needed to split further it could be done by understandable names - I don't want to have to look up the name of the Chinese or Russian navy every time I find an article that needs stubbing, for instance. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
:I went with Grutness's names for these. I hestitate to sort the RFAs in with the HMSs, though: they're both rather lengthy to simply lump them back in together. Perhaps {{tl|UK-aux-ship-stub}} as a sub-cat? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Ethiopia-stub}}===
I've been looking through the African stub categories and have found so far 70 stubs that could fit in this category. The majority are biography stubs, but not enough to do a {Ethiopia-bio-stub} according to procedure and {Africa-stub} needs the help far more than {Africa-bio-stub} does at present. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
:Ethiopia-stub ''might'' be viable on its own - it is fairly unique culturally. other than that, see my compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Missouri-geo-stub}}===
I would like to propose a stub for locations in Missouri seperate from the Midwestern stub. There are several stub locations in Missouri. Here is the proposed stub:
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: transparent;"><tr><td>[[Image:Missouri_state_flag.png|40px| ]]</td><td >'' This [[Missouri]] ___location article is a [[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]]. You can [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|help]] Wikipedia by [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]''.</td ></tr ></table ></div >[[:Category:Midwestern US geography stubs]]
[[User:Rt66lt|Rt66lt]] 02:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
*''Several'' is right. 43 to be precise, as of two weeks ago. There are quite a number of states with far more stubs than that that have yet to be split off (at last count, Missouri was 15th in line of un-split states). When Missouri gets to 75 stubs it will be split off, as is the case with all other states to reach that level. As of now, though, it can hold its place in the queue. Don't worry - US states get checked every two weeks to see which ones have reached the threshold, so it won't be too long after it does before it gets added in. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
**It's increased its numbers (I suspect through your handiwork :) - see note below at "October's geo-stub splits". [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Ghana-stub}}===
I've come across some 70 stubs that would be able to use this stub, scattered over a wide variety of Africa related stub categories. Probably more, especially since compared to some people, I'm conservative when it comes to applying country level stubs. Most of these do not have {Africa-stub}, but rather one of its sub types, so it won't help that much with trimming that cat, but that cat isn't in need of serious surgey at the moment anyway. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 21:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
:There's also been a lot of growth recently in the Ghana geo-stubs (which went from 30 two weeks ago to 70 now) - it could well be worth proposing a geo-stub for it too, especially given the size of AfricaW-geo-stub. The one problem with Ghana-stub is that there are two distinct and unrelated places: modern Ghana and ancient Ghana (which was approximately modern Mauritania to Chad). Would Ghana-stub deal with both? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::I was counting just the modern Ghana, which means I would have been more selective if you count also includes ancient Ghana. By my count there are only about 45 Ghana geo stubs and I completed that census just a day ago. Were all those stubs in {AfricaW-geo-stub}? [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes - Ghana's stub population, as I said, is growing fast! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::See compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
===Canadian highways===
''Moved from the Stub type page''
I noticed a significant amount of Canadian highways in [[:Category:Road stubs]]. We should create a new stub type.
:''This [[Canadian]] highway related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.''
--[[User:69.215.243.239|69.215.243.239]] 23:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
#This is not the page for that - take the suggestion to [[WP:WSS/P]]
#What's wrong with the already existing {{tl|Canada-road-stub}}?
[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
==Proposals, October 2005==
==={{tl|canada-mil-stub}}===
Aren't I quite the mil(-stub)itarist these days. I can't ''guarantee'' this is "viable", but I'm guessing it's there or thereabouts: google finds 36 articles already double-stubbed, which is likely to be an underestimate for several reasons, and I've been surprised at how many Canadian regimental stubs and the like I've come across. Would further help slim down {{tl|mil-stub}}. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:Created. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
===US-hist-stub===
Some sub categories might be a good idea.
*US-precolonial-hist-stub
*US-colonial-hist-stub
**US-UK-colonial-hist-stub for the eastern US
**US-FR-colonial-hist-stub for the Louisana purchase area
**US-ES-colonial-hist-stub for the southwest
I have been working on some French and Indian War British Forts in WV. They are relavent to UK and US history. We are not supposed to us two stubs, but to be accurate you need to, a US-UK-colonial-hist-stub would solve that problem, and these suggested stubs will define the era that the historical place or event belongs in. It will give it more context. --[[User:71Demon|71Demon]] 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
*My initial thought is ''no''. Double stubbing is not expressly prohibited, and the stub names proposed above are way too confusing to be useful. Can you give us some examples of some articles you've been working on? Here's one I've worked on recently: [[Fort Loudoun (Tennessee)]]—it's double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and US-struct-stub. Another is [[Spanish Florida]]—double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and Spain-stub (would be Spain-hist-stub if it existed). — [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|archaeologist-stub}}===
I've counted over 100 articles already that could use this stub tag. --[[User:Etacar11|<font face="Courier"><font color="#66CD00">Etacar11</font></font>]] 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Tanzania-stub}}===
A total of 78 stubs found of which 55 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{tl|Tanzania-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaE-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:see comment below. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Sudan-stub}}===
A total of 83 stubs found of which 62 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{tl|Sudan-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaN-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'm a little unsure about all this. Personally, I hate having separate country-stubs without country-geo-stubs, because I seem to spend almost my entire time on wikipedia replacing geo-stub templates from people who think that because there's a Eucovia-stub but no Eucovia-geo-stub they can replace the existing Asia-geo-stub with an existing non-geo template... which means we never get to find out whether a Eucovia-geo-stub template is needed. Take the case for Tanzania, above - there are 78 stubs in total, of which 55 are geo-stubs. 55 isn't enough for a separate geo-stub category, but some well-meaning sorter is bound to remove the AfricaE-geo-stub template from these articles if tanzania-stub is made, so we won't find out when a further 20 or so stubs take tanzania over the threshold for a geo-stub. What's more, since the geo-stub categories and the country-stub categories work in parallel, what you're actually saying is that there are 21 stubs suitable for Sudan-stub if geo-stubs are excluded. for that reason, I oppose the creation of both of these, especially since with ''67'' geo-stubs, Sudan is a country I've already mentioned as a potential candidate for its own geo-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:A compromise situation might be to break Africa-stub up in the same way that Africa-geo-stub is broken up - into the five regions. Thatw ould allow all the non-geo-stubs of Tanzania, Kenya, etc, to get a slightly more specific AfricaE-stub, for instance. It would make sense, because the coutlres of several of the countries in each region do overlap to some extent. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::It's really a matter of which is the lesser of two evils. Ideally, if we have an {XYZ-geo-stub} we'd have also have an {XYZ-stub} to be its parent in addition to {XY-geo-stub}. So the question is, is the lack of proper parenting worse than having to double stub with {XYZ-stub} and {XY-geo-stub}? Perhaps we should lower the stub threshold for parent stub types? [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:Mmm. That's definitely possible. My main beef is with having XYZ-stub but not XYZ-geo-stub, since XY-geo-stubs tend to get replaced rather than there being double-stubbing. Which makes it difficult to work out when a new geo-stub category is worthwhile. Having said that, there are now significant numbers of geo-stub categories - more countries have them than don't. Also, there is a certain amount of cultural overlap with many of these countries, especially ones like Kenya and Tanzania which have spent considerable parts of their recent history linked into a larger federation. Ideally, I think the ultimate situation would be for all countries to have both XY-stub and XY-geo-stub categories. The only problem are those where there's clearly little call for both. (Yeah, I know - I've simply restated the problem rather than offering any solutions) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|japan-geo-stub}}===
Due to the the total of about '''4000 articles''' in this one category, I am proposing splitting this stub category into stubs specific to each [[Prefectures of Japan|prefecture]]. Though this would create 47 new categories, if divided evenly, there would be about 80 per category. This, I believe, is much more easier than dividing by [[Regions of Japan|regions]], where some prefectures fall into a grey area between regions. It would also be easier to categorize by prefectures, since the prefecture is almost always mentioned in every article in the current category. I am 100% willing to do any work necessary in creating the new stubs and recategorizing the articles.
-[[User:Nameneko|Nameneko]] 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:Some sort of split of this has been needed for some time. Forty-seven new stubs sounds a little like overkill, but I can't think of any other way (except maybe to do what has been done with English counties and US states - count up which prefectures have the most stubs, then split them off first, just in case they're ''not'' evenly divided). I'd advise at least having a good look at how the English counties have been done to give you a template (no pun intended) for how to do the split, including things like standard namings for templates and categories. If you need any advice in it, I'd be only too happy to help (as, I'm sure, would the others of us who have been working primarily on geo-stubs, like Fingers-of-Pyrex). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::Okay, I've thought of a plan on how to split these up using, like you said, the US-geo-stubs:
*japan-geo-stub (this should include ambiguous locations, if any, and historic locations that don't fit into other categories)
**[region]-geo-stub (x8, by merging [[Hokuriku region|Hokuriku]], [[Koshinetsu region|Koshin'etsu]], and [[Tokai region|Tokai]] into [[Chubu region|Chubu]], which, though usually split up into the previous three regions in Japan, should be okay for categorization. I'm saying this because the three subregions of Chubu are variously defined. This will, though, as said earlier, make categorization a little more difficult, but I think I have a way to do that too)
***[prefecture]-geo-stub (x47 at most)
****[subprefecture]-geo-stub (x???, should only apply to Hokkaido, if anything. I'm doubtful that any prefecture-stub category will get big enough for this)
::Categorizing by region: A plan might be to go through and try to weed out articles one region at a time, as trying to memorize what prefectures are in what region might be difficult. After region sorting, there will probably be about 400-500 articles in each, but still a much more manageable number for finding major prefectural stubs needed.
::-[[User:Nameneko|Nameneko]] 06:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:After we've split {{tl|bio-stub}}, this one can be made our Great Task. I generally like the idea of splitting into (region)-geo-stubs, as 47 seems to much to me. 8, or even 10, is just fine. Since 400-500 articles are going to be there in each subcat, one or more of them will probably go beyond 800, and in this case we'll have to split there large (region)-geo-stubs into (prefecture)-geo-stubs. Estimation count would be helpful, of course, but it can be made after, say, 200 stubs are sorted. As for memorizing which prefecture is in which region, I'm ready to write it down on a sheet and keep it near my computer :) [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 17:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'm glad that this category is gaining recognition. It's definately in need to attention. I don't think it'll be necessary to memorize prefectures until after the articles have already been sorted into region categories. I think they ones should include:
*[[Hokkaido Prefecture|Hokkaidō]]
*[[Tohoku region|Tōhoku]]
*[[Kanto region|Kantō]]
*[[Chubu region|Chūbu]] (Chubu is split into three regions in Japan, but their boundries vary, so the Chubu region should be kept as one region unless it grows too much)
*[[Kansai|Kinki]] (the en.wikipedia article is titled "Kansai", but it's called the Kinki region in the ja.wikipedia and it's listed as "Kinki region" in [[Regions of Japan]])
*[[Chugoku region|Chūgoku]]
*[[Shikoku]]
*[[Kyushu|Kyūshū]] (includes [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]])
::Once these are sorted by region, there should be a count of what [[Prefectures of Japan|prefectures]] deserve a subcategory. My proposal is '''between 70 and 100 articles''', depending on how many there are in proportion to all of the other ones. I looked through some of the current category and found some articles that will probably stay in the japan-geo-stub category, such as [[Abeno Plain]], which is from a former province.
::-[[User:Nameneko|Nameneko]] 20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::Also, there was a dicussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Japan geography stubs]], but I have asked the participants to move the discussion here.
I am doing a census of the Japan-geo-stubs now. It will will take me one or two more days to complete. However, if one were to extrapolate from the first 1200 stubs, most prefectures would reach the 60 stub threashold. The exceptions would be:
: Fukui, Gunma, Ishikawa, Kagawa, Miyagi, Miyazaki, Nara, Saga, Tochigi, Toyama, Yamagata, and Yamaguichi.
There are also some prefectures that it would be iffy to assert will make it based on a projection on the census to date:
: Iwate, Kanagawa, Kochi, Kyoto, Nagasaki, Oita, Osaka, Shiga, Tottori, Wakayama, Yamanashi.
However, if my extrapolation holds true, then the eleven prefectures that don't gain stub categories of their own, plus those stubs that can't be sorted down to a single prefecture will have less than 600 stubs combined, which is small enough to not require regional subsplits. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
If we hold a threshold for which prefectures get their own subcategory, wouldn't this mean that as more articles are upgraded and the stub count decreases, we'd have to constantly reevaluate which subcategories need to be consolidated into the region parent? If a subcategory is made for most prefectures, then why not make one for all of them (one per prefecture) without a threshold? It will avoid some issues down the road, at the expense of a more complicated system right now. [[User:Neier|Neier]] 22:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
It's the same complication we have now for countries. If there were only a couple of prefectures left without a stub, I could see going ahead and creating them, but it looks like there will be about 10 prefectures that won't reach the 60 stub threshold and about another 10 that wouldn't make it, if we used a higher threshold of 75. 60 looks to be about the right threshold level if we want to avoid using region stub stypes. If we go higher, we'll need tio use region stub types to get Japan-geo-stub into the desireable area of <800 stubs or lower. Anyway, I'll prepare a rather verbose proposal for people to pick apart once I've finished my census. About half-done now and will probably finish sometime tomorrow. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Re Namemneko's comment about trying to memorise what is in what prefecture, there's no no need for that. Use a spreadsheet - same as I did with English geo-stubs. I copied and pasted the list of articles from the category into a spreadsheet, then noted alonside each which county they were in. Most were in only one - rivers and some mountains were about the only things that crossed boundaries. Then you've got a handy reference that can be sorted by county (or in your case prefecture) when you want to split off a stub type. Region sounds a better system for now (then again I know little of Japanese geography - my initial though was splitting off Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku and working from there) - see how many big prefectures there are later. I doubt it will get to subprefectures, but you never know. Since Caerwine's happy doing this one, I'll leave it to him (her?) to keep track of what goes where (but I'll help with restubbing, of course). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
::[http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog] Since Hokkaido is an island, a region, and a prefecture, all rolled up into one, plus it by far has the most stubs of any of the prefectures, but not so many as to justify having stub types for its subprefectures, so it's a certainty that we'll be creating a {{tl|Hokkaido-geo-stub}} no matter how we decide to handle splitting {{tl|Japan-geo-stub}}. I've got 2,800 stubs sorted at the moment, should finish tomorrow, but I have a date with a matress that shouldn't be delayed any longer. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I finished my census of the 3854 Japan geo stubs (as of the time of my census): If people want a detailed list, I'll put it on my user page, but I don't see the need. Prefectures range in size from a low of 35 stubs for Kagawa Prefecture to a high of 293 for Hokkaido Prefecture. There are two reasonable schemes in my opinion, depending on whether people want region level stub stypes for Japan. (Island level just won't work, stubbing prefectures at a level to make a Shikoku geo stub viable, would make a Honshu geo stub category too large.
'''''Scheme 1:''' Stub types separated out at 60 - prefectures only''
This would cause Prefecture level stub types to be created for all Prectures except: ''Fukui'' (45), ''Ishikawa'' (55), ''Kagawa'' (35}, ''Kanagawa'' (52}, ''Miyagi'' (57), ''Miyazaki'' (52), ''Nara'' (54), ''Saga'' (57), ''Shiga'' (55), ''Tottori'' (47), ''Toyama'' (45), ''Wakayama'' (57). There are 666 stubs that can't be assigned to a single prefecture, and with Chugoku, Kanto, and Shikoku having less than 60 stubs that would go to a prefecture, if we create stub types at this level, I can't see creating region stub types.
'''''Scheme 2:''' Stub types separated out at 75 - prefectures and regions''
In addition to the above, ''Iwate'', ''Kochi'', ''Kyota'', ''Nagasaki'', ''Okinawa'', ''Osaka'', ''Tochigi'', ''Tokushima'', ''Yamagata'', ''Yamaguichi'', and Yamanashi wouldn't get stub types, but the load on {{tl|Japan-geo-stub}} would be high enough that we'd need region level stub types, all of which would have more than 75 stubs and thus creatable, so we'd only be creating 4 fewer stub types (There would be too many to not divide Honshu into regions, so an Island only split would not be viable.
Based on the above, I recommend creating 35 stub types, one for each prefecture with 60 or more stubs. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
:I actually like both of the ideas. However, creating 35 stub types begs the question of what to do with the rest of the stubs for prefectures with less than 60 stubs (many of them ''barely'' missing the cut). Should they stay in the japan-geo-stub category? The 75-limit idea allows for region stubs, which would at least put the remaining stubs in slightly more specific groups.
:-[[User:Nameneko|Nameneko]] 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
::Same as with the US and UK ones - they'd be left in the main Japan category and periodically recounted to see what other prefectures reach the threshold. (And for that reason it's worth keeping the spreadsheet of what stubs are in what prefecture!) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess that settles it. Here are the stubs we'll need to make and categorize, then:
*{{tl|Aichi-geo-stub}} (done)
*{{tl|Akita-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Aomori-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Chiba-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Ehime-geo-stub}}
*No Fukui-geo-stub
*{{tl|Fukuoka-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Fukushima-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Gifu-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Gunma-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Hiroshima-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Hokkaido-geo-stub}} (Finished initial moving)
*{{tl|Hyogo-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Ibaraki-geo-stub}}
*No Ishikawa-geo-stub
*{{tl|Iwate-geo-stub}}
*No Kagawa-geo-stub
*{{tl|Kagoshima-geo-stub}}
*No Kanagawa-geo-stub
*{{tl|Kochi-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Kumamoto-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Kyoto-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Mie-geo-stub}}
*No Miyagi-geo-stub
*No Miyazaki-geo-stub
*{{tl|Nagano-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Nagasaki-geo-stub}}
*No Nara-geo-stub
*{{tl|Niigata-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Oita-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Okayama-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Okinawa-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Osaka-geo-stub}}
*No Saga-geo-stub
*{{tl|Saitama-geo-stub}}
*No Shiga-geo-stub
*{{tl|Shimane-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Shizuoka-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Tochigi-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Tokushima-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Tokyo-geo-stub}}
*No Tottori-geo-stub
*No Toyama-geo-stub
*No Wakayama-geo-stub
*{{tl|Yamagata-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Yamaguchi-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Yamanashi-geo-stub}}
-[[User:Nameneko|Nameneko]] 02:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:If you'd like to put the lists for some of these categories onto a page a bit like I did with [[User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits]], then we could all help sort these stubs! :) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::Hmmm. I actually meant put the list of which stub articles you know belong to each category there! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Ah, I see what you mean. I'll work on it then.
:::-[[User:Nameneko|Nameneko]] 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:I've added my list of stubs that don't conviently include the prefecture name in the article title to Grutness' page for the stub types above. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 05:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I've created all these. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|California-stub}}===
Since all of the other California stubs are properly named (e.g. {{tl|California-south-geo-stub}}), should a proper California-stub be created, either as a redirect from, or as a replacement for, the {{tl|Calif-stub}}. [[User:BlankVerse|<font color=green>''Blank''</font><font color= #F88017>''Verse''</font>]]<font color=#2554C7> </font>[[User talk:BlankVerse|<font color=#F660AB>∅</font>]] 06:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:At the risk of this sounding like a vote of RFA, I thought we had one! About time Calif-stub was renamed. Go to, I'd say. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'm like you—I swear that there used to be a California-stub that used to be a redirect. [[User:BlankVerse|<font color=green>''Blank''</font><font color= #F88017>''Verse''</font>]]<font color=#2554C7> </font>[[User talk:BlankVerse|<font color=#F660AB>∅</font>]] 10:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
===A whole bunch of road stubs, part 2===
Per the discussions above I propose:
*{{tl|Florida-State-Highway-Stub}}
*{{tl|Mississippi-State-Highway-Stub}}
*{{tl|NY-State-Highway-Stub}}
*{{tl|WV-road-stub}}
I suppose that New York and West Virginia could be abbreviated... {{tl|US-road-stub}} will probably be down to under 200 articles if these stubs go through and when I finish classifying the ones I have approved above. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:Probably a reasonable idea, but the names need work. IIRC, {{tl|NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} (or maybe {{tl|NewYork-statehighway-stub}}?) is the usual standard we're trying to keep to. Anyone? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
::{{NewYork-State-Highway-Stub}} works for me... I'm trying to maintain consistency with the other stub templates. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
::All the existing state highway stubs capitalize "stub"... But I think there's something to be said for bringing atleast that bit inline with the rest of the stub templates. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 03:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Hmm... I'm leaning towards capitalizing the stub, but... I'd prefer the consistency so that someone who is doing the classification won't type the wrong thing in by mistake. I'd remember the difference I hope but someone else might not. Otherwise it really doesn't matter to me. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
* A little long, US stub is written like this {{tl|US-road-stub}} West Virginia's could be written {{tl|WV-road-stub}}. We are going to work on entries for non-Highway roads. A Road stub would be more adventagous, then one that only covers highways. --[[User:71Demon|71Demon]] 19:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
**Please don't edit the proposal please. I don't have a problem with the seperate non-highway road classification since after all we have {{tl|California County Routes Stub}}. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] -
*** Dude I'm just voicing my opinion, and adding to the discussion. --[[User:71Demon|71Demon]] 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
****Yes but then say you don't want the florida stub. Don't just delete it like that. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
19:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
***** What are you talking about? I never said a word about Florida. If I did I would suggest FL-road-stub, but I never mentioned a word about Florida. --[[User:71Demon|71Demon]] 01:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
******The page history says that you deleted the Florida tag above... maybe that was an accident? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 01:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
**I guess we could have a West Virginia Highways stub and then a West Virginia County Routes Stub for the WV Secondary Routes. I've been wanting to work on articles for many of the county routes in the [[Eastern Panhandle]] of [[West Virginia]]. ;)
***Oh, and {{tl|West-Virginia-State-Highway-Stub}} is not going to fly...It's much too long. I prefer {{tl|WV-road-stub}} with [[User:71Demon|71Demon]].--[[User:Caponer|Caponer]] 19:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
****Yeah I agree... is {{tl|WV-State-Highway-Stub}} better? For more consistency with all the other ones created... --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 19:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
***** For consistancy I think you should use '''road''' and not '''highway''' the US stubs are for Roads. We don't need a bunch of different stubs, just a single road stub for each state. That is why I suggested {{tl|WV-road-stub}} it is all encompassing for any road in the state and consistant with {{tl|US-road-stub}} which is currently in use. I don't think you need to add the state, the WV postal abbreviation is understood that WV is a state. Their are also a complete set of International two letter codes for countries so no confusion will occur. Keep it simple, no need to make it complex. --[[User:71Demon|71Demon]] 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
******We have {{tl|California State Highway Stub}}, {{tl|Arizona State Route Stub}}, {{tl|Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub}}, {{tl|Maryland-State-Highway-Stub}}, {{tl|Nevada-State-Highway-Stub}}, {{tl|Washington-State-Highway-Stub}}... I know there's a few more I can't think of right now. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
*******I agree with 71Demon, all those -State-Highway-Stub templates should be changed to -road-stub templates for consistency with {{tl|US-road-stub}}. Why have stub categories set up to exclude articles about roads that aren't State Highways? [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 01:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
********8 templates moved to be consistent with 3 templates? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And besides, US-road-stub is for a country whereas the State Highway stubs are for states. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 01:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
********* The point is - if we call them State-Highway-stubs instead of road-stubs, then that's silly because it excludes all roads in the state that aren't state highways. US-road-stub is sensibly named, because it allows for roads of any designation. The states should follow that model, too. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 04:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
**********I've put regular roads into the state highway cats before... it's not that much of a problem. Keep in mind though that some of these templates are associated with WikiProjects. However, half of the non-state highway roads are non-notable (at least in the sight of other Wikipedians on AFD) or can be classified as county routes... and thus a separate classification such as {{tl|California County Routes Stub}}. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
*I have agreed for the WV road stub to be called {{tl|WV-road-stub}}. However, I am against the renaming of all the other state highway templates. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:Please don't use the two-letter postal abbreviations. Please use the full state name, consistent with the split of the U.S. geo stubs. Please use {{tl|WestVirginia-road-stub}}. — [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Quite. Please, for a modicum of consistency with other stub templates, use:
*{{tl|Florida-road-stub}}
*{{tl|Mississippi-road-stub}}
*{{tl|NewYork-road-stub}}
*{{tl|WestVirginia-road-stub}}
[[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:You seem to be ignoring the fact that all of the other state highway templates are named with the -State-Highway-Stub convention or something similar. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Russia-mil-stub}}; {{tl|mil-vehicle-stub}}; {{tl|mil-aero-stub}}; {{tl|mil-aviation-stub}}===
First two should be self-explanatory; quite a few of these in mil-stub, which is still about 1100-strong. In the latter case, two possible alternatives present themselves: military-aircraft-specific stubs (subcat of mil-stub and aero-stub; supercat of the existing {{tl|bomber-stub}}); or military-aviation-in-general stubs (subcat of mil-stub and the (templateless and stubless) [[:Category:Aviation_stubs]]; supercat of {{tl|RAF-stub}} and the like). Or indeed, possibly both. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'd slightly favour the aviation in general one. There are quite a large number of air-base stubs around. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Created and populated Russia-mil-stub. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Created and populated mil-aviation-stub, at least to above the threshold. Didn't include many actual military aircraft, which are mostly lurking in {{tl|aero-stub}}, and I'm increasingly of the view that these should indeed be a separate sub-cat: anyone object to having them both? Nor did I come across very many airbase stubs: those may be lurking elsewhere, too... I'll look for these more systematically as and when {{tl|fort-stub}}, proposed below, is created, if indeed it is. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Created and populated mil-vehicle-stub, though I confess I only scanned weapon-stub for possible tanks, self-propelled guns, etc. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
===October's geo-stubs===
It's that time again! Yes, I've gone through all the categories, and the following look likely to pass muster:
*{{tl|Ghana-geo-stub}} (full disclosure - I've been adding a few new stubs to this one myself)
*{{tl|Sudan-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Minnesota-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Tasmania-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|SouthAustralia-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|NovaScotia-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Cambridgeshire-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Essex-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Derbyshire-geo-stub}}
Also, two that have been proposed before have increased enough that I'm no longer particularly against them: {{tl|Kenya-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Missouri-geo-stub}}. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:These all look good. [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
::Concur on the Minnesota and Missouri. I'm going to go ahead and create them because of the four new already-created "rogue" U.S. state geo stubs that will be split off, too. (See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries]].) — [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 11:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Okay, I've put those two and the four rogues up on my stub-splitting page. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I've set up the Cambs, Essex and Derbs ones now too. Can we have lists of places that need to be moved? Ta, :) [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 12:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
::Heeey - I like this... I suggest the stubs and set up the lists, and someone else does all the re-stubbing ;) I'll put up the lists in the next few minutes (then I'm off to bed - it's 2.15 a.m. here!) - I'll help out with any that are left when I get up (oh, and I'll update the map in {{cl|England geography stubs}} now too). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 13:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|book-stub}} substub proposals===
Two ideas:
* create a {{tl|fiction-stub}} to at least separate out fiction novels that don't fit into existing fiction stubs like {{tl|Hist-book-stub}} or {{tl|sf-book-stub}}. I think a {{tl|lit-book-stub}} for classic literature would also help; even though literature vs fiction is a POV thing, it's only a stub categorization question rather than a matter of article content.
* break down book stubs by author nationality - at least substubs for US, UK, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Latin America, Japan, China, and Africa. We could create more nationality substubs as needed. Not only would this clean up the category, but a user with particular interest in, say, German literature could more easily find a whole set of stubs to expand. | [[User:Keithlaw|Keithlaw]] 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
**ISTR we've actually gone the other way on the first idea - isn't there a nonfiction-book-stub? If so, then by default all the other should be fiction books. As to author nationality, it's a good idea in theory, but I think it may need a little more work. I suspect it's a little more complicated than simply categorising by author's nationality. The nationality of an author doesn't automatically tell you what nationality the book relates to: Why should Bill Bryson's book on Australia be categorised under US authored books, for instance? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
*** I can't speak for Keithlaw, but I think on the 1st point he's saying that if we could separate new fiction from classics. All that would need to be done is to make a 'classics-book-stub' and leave the fiction-stub as it is. I'm new to editing, but would this be a problem? A classic would be defined as a classic if someone put it there and no one had major objections. Plus it would just be for stubs, not necessarily an authoritative canonical judgment. I know that I would be primarily interested in working in this category since I like what is traditionally considered classics, and will likely ignore newer books and leave them to be categorized by those that are interested. It just seems like there's a rough 50-50 split between these two categories, and this would help. As to the second point, I think I'd need to hear more discussion.--[[User:JECompton|JECompton]] 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
****JECompton, you did a pretty good job of speaking for me after all. That was a big part of what I had in mind - further subdividing the fiction that's left in book-stub. Classics jumped out at me for two reasons. One, it's an area of interest to me and it's a big part of what I read (sounds like you're the same way). Two, I would bet that a lot of visitors to Wikipedia are looking for info on classics; for example, students looking for info to help them write book reports or essays. As for Grutness' objection on nationalities, I was only talking about applying those substubs to fiction. Bryson's book on Australia would go into the nonfiction stub. For example, [[Stendhal]]'s ''[[The Charterhouse of Parma]]'' is considered French literature, even though most of the novel takes place in Italy. | [[User:Keithlaw|Keithlaw]] 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
**Hmmm... perhaps agaiin it's a case of working in the other direction - breaking out a classics-book-stub first and seeing what's left. I'm willing to be swayed by others here who have done more work on this category, though, and I'm a ''little'' worried that "classics' could be somewhat POV. ISTR [[User:DESiegel]] and [[user:*Kat*]] were doing most of the work on the book stubs, but I'm not sure whether either is still part of this wikiproject (it may be worth putting a note on their user pages, though, see if they've got any suggestions) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
***Grutness, I agree with you that classics vs non-classics is POV, but if it's just for stub-sorting, it shouldn't be a big deal because in theory that's not permanent. Besides, if better stub-sorting means more stubs get expanded, I'll take that benefit over any detriment from POV in stub identification. | [[User:Keithlaw|Keithlaw]] 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
*I just did a sort through the book stubs. There were an fair number of undersorted or missorted stubs, correcting those brought the total to just a little over 800 book stubs. If anthologoes of short stories go in the proposed {{tl|story-stub}} then this cat will easily go below 800 stubs. Rather than what's been proposed, I think what's needed is one more genre-based stub. A stub for the spy/techno-thrillers would easily get over the 60-stub limit, the only problem is what to call it? [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
**How about "suspense-book-stub?" But back to the point, my goal in this proposal wasn't so much getting the category under 800 but making it easier for would-be editors to find stubs they want to expand. Just because the category is down to 750 stubs doesn't mean I'm going to browse it, but a classic-lit-stub category with 100 stubs isn't so intimidating. | [[User:Keithlaw|Keithlaw]] 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
*FWIW, I counted 32 current book-stubs that would qualify for classic-lit-stub using a very conservative selection process. If I was a little less conservative - including more 20th century novels - the total would be about 55. | [[User:Keithlaw|Keithlaw]] 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
** So the need isn't that dire, and although it's only for stub-sorting, I see minor (or major) discussions coming up as to the question of what is classical and what isn't; but I like the idea of the {{tl|suspense-book-stub}} or something to the effect of a [[tl|darkwave-book-stub}}, maybe also to include the beloved Ctulhu-stuff :) [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
***Actually, someone proposed a {{tl|Cthulhu-stub}} a few months back (it'll be in the archive somewhere). I found about 60 stubs it would suit, but the propsal was rejected. perhaps it's time to revisit it? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
****Yes, I'm all for a spy-book-stub or something like that. 'Suspense' seems a bit ambiguous to me--it seems to connote light horror or intense action, or perhaps even psychopathic thriller. I'm not even sure all spy novels necessarily rely on suspense. Is spy-book-stub too exclusive against the techno side? Also, I'm glad to hear about the short story stub--I hadn't thought of that, but was annoyed by the many of those that were a pain. As to the classical stub, If it's not too many, I guess no worries. If there does seem to be an overwhelming number of Booker, Nobel, and canonical books, I would be for this separation.--[[User:JECompton|JECompton]] 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
===Two literature stubs===
While resorting misplaced stubs that were in {{tl|book-stub}} there were two types of stubs that I sent back to {{tl|lit-stub}} for now that I think are deserving of their own stubs:
*{{tl|fict-geo-stub}} Stub articles about fictional places. Between the ones already in {{tl|lit-stub}} and others to be found in [[:Category:Fictional locations]] and its numerous subcategries, there are easily 60 stubs that would go in here.
*{{tl|essay-stub}} The nonfictional counterpart to the {{tl|story-stub}} for short pieces of nonfiction writing.
Comments? [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
*I'd definitely support a fictional locations stub - quite a few of these turn up in the geo-stub category. Given that the main category is called Fictional ''locations'', though, perhaps {{tl|fict-___location-stub}} would be a better name? That would allow for fictional buildings, planets, and the like, which don't really count in the normal run of geography stubs. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*I agree--{{tl|fict-___location-stub}} sounds much more suggestive of what it is... --[[User:JECompton|JECompton]] 03:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*I've created {{tl|fict-___location-stub}}, and redirected the odd existing {{tl|fictionalplace-stub}} to there. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 18:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
===Road stubs===
What happened to this section? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]] - [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rschen7754&dbname=enwiki count])''' 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:It got [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive4#U.S._Interstate_Highway_Stub|archived]]. I didn't see a clear consensus, but on the surface it looks like people are creating stubs and applying them consistently. Is there anything else to discuss? — [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 02:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:Looks like the more recent one got clobbered when someone added a new section; I've put it back. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Euro-stub}} {{tl|Asia-stub}}===
We've got a classic chicken and egg type situation here. The easiest way to show that a stub type would be viable is to find a stub type that is at >100 and show that it can produce a sub type that has >50 stubs. However for the geographical based splits of various categories, there is no parent for the lightly represented European and Asian countries, in which stubs can be put until there can be shown there is a sufficient quantity to warrant a stub type of its own, and the result is that it difficult to show that the category would be viable. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 16:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:: a very good point. Actually, you could make a case for saying "fifty stubs or child categories" -which should be easy in the case of Europe at least. The situation's analogous to the geo-stubs, though. in that the only way I know when there are enough stubs to split off for a country is to see how many there are in the regional category. Some of those regional categories are little more than parents for the child categories now, and I'd see the same eventually happening with these. On the same subject, do we have all the other continental ones ? We have South America, Central America, Caribbean and Africa, what about Oceania-stub? There's probably little need for an Antarctica-stub at present, but that might also be worth a thought... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::There is an Oceania stub and has been for some time, but no NorthAm stub. Since there is a complete set of North American subcats and most pre-Colonial border stubs would take pre-Columbian-stub in any case, I'm not certain there is much of a need for a NorthAm stub. (How many 17th-18th century Iroquois-related stubs and/or NAFTA-related stubs are we likely to have?) [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 15:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:Strongly support both the above; it boggles the mind to think where these are even "sorted" at present. Make sense as parent categories, as G. says. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
===Sky television stub===
A sky stub with the logo, similar to [[:Category:BBC_stubs]], would be very useful. We already have a [[:Category:Sky One programmes]]. -[[User:Chaosfeary|Chaosfeary]] 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*How many stubs would such a category contain? If there are more than about 60, I support this. If not, then not. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 22:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Portugal-bio-stub}}===
There are over 200 stubs in {{tl|Portugal-stub}} and there are easily over 60 biography stubs in that stub category alone, so this split seems like an obvious no-brainer. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds good. I ran into quite a few Portuguese people stubs while sorting through {{tl|bio-stub}}. There's certainly enough stubs for this tag. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]][[User talk:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">rt</font>]]''' 00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
===Subcats of Sportbio-stub===
Following discussion at the very bottom of this page, it looks like the following four sport-specific bio-stubs would be useful:
*{{tl|boxingbio-stub}}
*{{tl|badmintonbio-stub}}
*{{tl|skatingbio-stub}} (for both speed skating and figure skating)
*{{tl|athlete-stub}}, for track and field athletes, including triathletes (in case you're uwondering, this is currently a redirect to sportbio-stub)
Given the different meanings of "athlete" in Commonwealth and US English, comment is particularly welcome on the naming of this one, and also for the four categories which would be associated with these templates. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. I suggest that we go with "athlete-stub" by that name, as "trackandfield-bio-stub" is too horrible to contemplate; and just be careful in the wording of the template message and category. Though just to be devil's advocate: are track-bio- and field-bio- separately viable? I'm not convinced they're at all clearer, though, even in American English. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Track-bio-stub could have the problem that sometimes "track and field" is sometimes shortened to just "track" in casual speech. Field-bio-stub also sounds abit unnatural to me. Splitting it would pose problems for bio-stubs relating to decathalon or heptathalon which fall under both categories. I think "athlete-stub" is the best choice, as long as the template and category are appropriately worded. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 06:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Similarly the jumping events are usually regarded as field events (I used to high jump myself), but many athletes do both long jump and sprints. I'd favour athlete-stub myself - I think it can be explained in the template easily enough, and if the category is {{cl|Track and field athlete stubs}} there should be no problem. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:<s>I might suggest {{tl|boxer-stub}} instead of {{tl|boxingbio-stub}} - it's nonstandard but more intuitive.</s> I'd also add {{tl|rugbybio-stub}} to the list - [http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=+rugby&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Sportspeople+stubs+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=en.wikipedia.org&safe=off this Google search] suggests there's over 60 rugby bios (league and union combined). [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|<small>#£@%&$?!</small>]] 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, scratch that first one - I've just realised there's going to be promoters, trainers, etc. in there as well as pugilists. For that reason, {{tl|athleticsbio-stub}} might get round the whole "athlete" confusion as well. [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|<small>#£@%&$?!</small>]] 15:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
===Subcategories of Automobile stubs===
::''Also'', please see '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Truck_stub|Truck-stub]]''' below. Many truck articles are now classified under AUTO-stub.
Just had a look at [[:Category:Automobile stubs]], and the list has grown quite long.
Propose to split into car manufacturers, so that all cars produced by Ford, would be listed in {{tl|ford-auto-stub}}, all by
GM in the {{tl|gm-auto-stub}} and so on. [[User:Bjelleklang|bjelleklang]] 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Overpopulated category certainly needs to be sorted. Please use hyphens in names (e.g., {{tl|bmw-auto-stub}}). Would {{tl|auto-part-stub}} ([[:Category:Automobile part stubs]]) and/or {{tl|auto-term-stub}} ([[:Category:Automobile terminology stubs]]) be useful, too? — [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 13:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Rather than by manufacturers, I think a better immediate split would be US-auto-stub, UK-auto-stub and Japan-auto-stub. Along with those that don't qualify in those subcats that would probably cut the category into four fairly even pieces. If any of those need further splitting, then manufacturer would be an obvious next level down. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:Could probably be a good short-term solution, but sooner or later, these lists would probably also have to be split up again, with quite a lot more articles to sort. I still think that creating subcategories based on manufacturer would be a better solution. [[User:Bjelleklang|bjelleklang]] 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced that either proposed split is a good idea. I'm doubtful that a company based split is particularly viable. There are an awful lot of stubs that come from companies that only produced a few models and thus would never leave {{tl|auto-stub}} save by becoming not a stub. Furthermore, editors interested in the models of a single manufacturer could easily enough start with that manufacturer's article and see what models are in need of being de-stubbed. A country based split also has its problems. Is Chrysler US or German? Is Jaguar UK or US, etc? So what do I propose instead?
:*First of all, there clearly are enough stubs for {{tl|auto-corp-stub}} This would have the added benefit of also helping to trim the Corporation stubs down somewhat.
:*Secondly, An era-based split for the car models themselves. The only real problem is defining the eras. I would suggest the following, but I am flexible concerning the names and periods.
:**{{tl|brass-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced during or before 1918.
:**{{tl|vintage-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced during 1919-1945.
:**{{tl|antique-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced during 1946-1979.
:**{{tl|modern-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced in 1980 or later.
That gives us five stub types in all which should be enough to provide a first approximation. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 05:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
*Sounds fair, although I suspect that many stub sorters will get the categories confused. BTW, shouldn't the first one be veteran-auto-stub? Or are veteran cars called brass cars in the US? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 22:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::It's my understanding that what in the UK are called veteran cars (before 1905) and Edwardian cars (1905-1918) are lumped together in the US as Brass Era cars. However, while the end of WWI is of fairly universal significance as a historical marking point, the death of Queen Vicky is a pretty much a UK thing. I fudged the categories slightly as well for ease of use, as I figure the end of WWI, the end of WWII, and the end of Disco, three notable disasters in human history, should be easy to remember for the amateur stub sorter. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:::QV was 1901, but I get your point. As to the death of disco, I thought that was a celebration :). I'll accept the death of John Lennon as the third notable disaster though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::<strike>I'm sorry to say that I'm still not convinced, as there are close to 1400 stubs in the category. If we sort by production era, I don't think that it'll make the problem go away, only help to make some of the subcategories somewhat shorter. I do not agree with your argument that any future author could look at the manufacturer's article, as there are no way of telling if all models are listed there! Although your suggestion was good, it would involve quite a lot of work compared to sorting by manufacturer, as you would have to check every article, so I still think that sorting by manufacturer is a better idea. [[User:Bjelleklang|bjelleklang]] 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</strike>
::Had a look at the automobile article, and suggest that the stubs are sorted in the same manner.
::This gives the following:
:::*{{tl|veteran-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced ->1900
:::*{{tl|brass-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced 1900-ca. 1915
:::*{{tl|vintage-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced ca.1915 - 1930
:::*{{tl|classicpw-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced 1930-1945 (classic pre-war)
:::*{{tl|brass-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced 1945-ca.1975 (classic post-war)
:::*{{tl|modern-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced in 1975 or later.
[[User:Bjelleklang|bjelleklang]] 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::Take a good look at the Automobile stubs. There are maybe 150 GM stubs, 100 Ford stubs, and 75 Daimler-Chrysler stubs in the category, and those companies are only able to reach the over 60 level by combining all articles from all brands used or acquired by those companies. I don't think any other manufacturer could reach 60 stubs because an awful lot of those stubs are for models from companies that went defunct after only producing a few models, and the ones that last tend to have most of their articles not be stubs. So after doing a manufacturer-based sort, of the 1538 suto stubs at present, we'd still be left with around 1200 stubs in the main category. However, what do you think about revising my proposed categories to be decade based:
::*{{tl|brass-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced during 1919 or earlier.
::*{{tl|vintage-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced during 1920-1949.
::*{{tl|antique-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced during 1950-1979.
::*{{tl|modern-auto-stub}} Automobile models first produced in 1980 or later.
Might be easier to keep track of for some people, tho they are a bit more fudgy with the names than my first idea. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 22:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
====Truck stub====
Propose "TRUCK-stub" Currently all truck stubs: like '''truck manufacturers, trucking companies, terms, etc.''', are classified as AUTO-stubs. I would like to break-off the truck releated stubs.
'''{{Truck-stub}} template request'''
I just started the [[Tank truck]] article and found no <nowiki>{{Truck-stub}}</nowiki> under "Transportation" so I added the generic <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> template. It was soon found out (good for you guys) and it was replaced with the <nowiki>{{Van-stub}}</nowiki> which doesn't really fit very well. Anyone feeling creative out there, I think we should have a logo-enhanced <nowiki>{{Truck-stub}}</nowiki> template (a '''tank truck''' hauling several thousand gallons of gasoline/petrol ain't a ''van''). Thanks, --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 00:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:True, and that category would be useful - question is, though, do you want it for trucks, or things like the article you mentioned, which is a lorry? And what about artics, which are a little bit bigger than lorries and a whole lot bigger than trucks (they're the same as the whole truck and trailer, in fact)? In other words, the term ''truck'' is used differently in differen countries - what I call a truck is what you'd probably call the tractor part of a truck. So we need a term that's a bit more language-neutral. Perhaps Bigrig-stub would be a solution...? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::The [[Tank truck]] article will include small (home hydroseeding slurry or lawn fertilizer/pest control, up to 1000 gal.) to medium (local delivery heating oil or home septic removal, 1000-3000 gal.) to large (major delivery gasoline/petrol, over 3000 gal.) sized trucks. I'm not yet sure about the exact breakpoints so the examples may be imprecise. More importantly, the truck-stub template that I'm requesting would apply to most of the vehicles in the [[List of truck types]] or any other vehicle that someone thinks is a truck. The Bigrig-stub idea seems a bit narrow as there ''are'' small and medium trucks. I'm just hoping for something more descriptive than the <nowiki>{{van-stub}}</nowiki>notice that is now on the article. If it turns out that I'm making an unreasonable or undoable request or if the word "truck" is too ambiguous for a stub then I'll make do with what already exists.
::Or, we could have two templates, <nowiki>{{truck-stub}} and {{lorry-stub}} </nowiki>so as to avoid a difficult international catchall. Or, how about a <nowiki>{{truck/lorry-stub}}</nowiki> or if you prefer a <nowiki> {{lorry/truck-stub}}</nowiki> template.
::I understand the need to have some kind of triage to deal with stub proliferation but I don't think that "truck" is all ''that'' esoteric.
--[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I think it would make sense to have some kind of generic {{tl|vehicle-stub}} under Transport, and then {{tl|auto-stub}}, {{tl|van-stub}}, {{tl|bus-stub}}, {{tl|motorcycle-stub}} and any others we need could be subcategories, if there seems to be sufficient demand for them. Odd vehicles that fall through the cracks in the definitions or that might be called a "lorry" somewhere and a "semi-trailer" elsewhere could just go into {{tl|vehicle-stub}} until the semantics get sorted out. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 21:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Excuse my ignorance here but you think that a <nowiki>{{vehicle-stub}}</nowiki> should supercede "truck"? My kid's bike is a vehicle! Tell you what, when you folks figure it all out, please as a courtesy (you know where I live) , let me know for future reference. Thanks, --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 22:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Hydnjo, a vehicle is any "non-living means of transportation." This includes trucks/lorries. So it is obvious that {{tl|vehicle-stub}} is about the only natural supercessor to {{tl|truck-stub}}, just like {{tl|sport-stub}} supercedes {{tl|football-stub}}. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 22:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::One possibility would be to have a generic vehicle-stub as a catch-all ''and'' to have something for trucks/lorries etc. if there's a general vehicle stub, then double hyphenating becomes an option, and we could make goods-vehicle-stub or haulage-vehicle-stub for anything from panel vans right up to Kenworths. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I can't believe that I caused so much anguish over a damn <nowiki>{{truck-stub}}</nowiki> request. Prior to the "stub sorting" effort I would have just made the template myself. In deference to your effort I held back and sought your approval. I also feel confident that this neuron flurry could have been put to better use. My apologies for bringing up such a mundane subject and wasting so much of your time. I continue to be supportive of your project and hope that it will serve us well. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 07:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Heh :) Don't worry - this is standard practice here. And for good reason - changing the name of an article takes a couple of clicks - changing the name of a template-category combination takes a hell of a lot of effort, since it requires null-edits on every article that carries the template. So we want to be sure it's done right first time. I'm pretty sure that there will be a usable stub category soon - it's only the minor details that will take a bit of time. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::<font size=6>'''TRUCK-STUB'''</font>
...is the name I want. Most people around the world know what a truck is, and those whose don't can be educated by.....US! Lorry=truck=camión de carga; cargo-carrier would be a second choice. How about: '''"Cargo-Vehicle-stub"'''...??
[[User:WikiDon|WikiDon]] 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:'''Heavy motor vehicle'''.........????
===Catalonia-stub===
I've been having a discussion with someone who is busily sorting out the Catalan articles on Wikipedia, and he's keen for there to be a separate Catalonia-stub, to be used as a secondary stub with Spain-bio-stub and Spain-geo-stub. The Spanish stub categories overall are a little on the thin side, but I think it should be possible to get close to 100 stubs in a Catalonia category quite easily. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
*Looks ok to me. Catalonias got a distinct culture and there will be probably enough stubs. [[User:BL Lacertae|BL Lacertae]] 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
===German bio stubs===
I was sorting through {{tl|Germany-bio-stub}} to see if there were wnough for a German actor stub and as long a was going through those 700 or so stubs, I also checked to see if there were any other groups wotrh sorting out. Here's what I'd like to propose:
* 88 stubs {{tl|Germany-academic-bio-stub}} (Includes categories that have split out from {{tl|academic-bio-stub}} such as {{tl|historian-stub}}, so this won't do much to eliminate double stubbing, but it will help thin out {{tl|Germany-bio-stub}}.
* 61 stubs {{tl|Germany-scientist-stub}} (See comments above.) About another 10 or so if this includes {{tl|med-bio-stub}} where those stubs are for their research instead of their practice of medicine.
* 61 stubs {{tl|Germany-actor-stub}} Mostly these just have {{tl|Germany-bio-stub}} and {{tl|actor-stub}} so this will cut down on the doublestubbing a good deal. These three cats will enable {{tl|Germany-bio-stub}} to be trimmed down to the <500 level. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 02:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
===Split of {{tl|footybio-stub}}===
(from [[WP:SFD]]) This category has been proposed for renaming from [[:Category:Football (soccer) player stubs]] to [[:Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs]]. At the same time, a split seems in order, as there are currently over 2200 stubs. I've gone through about 15% of them and sorted them by continent, and counted Europe 214, Africa 54, South America 24, North America 16, Oceania 13, Asia 12. Within Europe the two biggest countries are England (59) and Scotland (21), with no others over 12. I'd suggest the following split:
* <s>{{tl|Europe-footybio-stub}}</s> {{tl|Euro-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:European football biography stubs]] (<s>approx. 900</s> 970)
** {{tl|England-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:English football biography stubs]] (<s>~400</s> 374)
** {{tl|Scotland-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:Scottish football biography stubs]] (<s>~140</s> 132)
* {{tl|Africa-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:African football biography stubs]] (<s>~350</s> 317)
* <s>{{tl|SouthAmerica-footybio-stub}}</s> {{tl|SouthAm-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:South American football biography stubs]] {<s>~170</s> 182}
* <s>{{tl|NorthAmerica-footybio-stub}}</s> {{tl|NorthAm-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:North American football (soccer) biography stubs]] (<s>~100</s> 72)
* {{tl|Asia-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:Asian football biography stubs]] (<s>~100</s> 82)
* {{tl|Oceania-footybio-stub}} - [[:Category:Oceanian football (soccer) biography stubs]] (<s>~100</s> 60)
Europe could possibly be split further in future, if other countries experience a spurt of stub growth. I've also simplified the category names, leaving out the word "soccer" where "football" is unambiguous (see also the subcats of [[:Category:Football (soccer) stubs]]). [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|<small>#£@%&$?!</small>]] 09:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me - (BTW, this is Grutness, currently not logged in). 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::Two complaints, one major and one minor:
::The major is that in order to be consistent with the names we've used for other stubs, three of these should be {{tl|Euro-footybio-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAm-footybio-stub}}, and {{tl|NorthAm-footybio-stub}}.
::The minor is that unless your 15% is randomly picked from all over the alphabet, the actual distribution for all of them is likely to be quite different than what you have seen so far. In my past experience, Asian biographies tend to be underrepresented at the start of the alphabet, so unless you picked a different segment, I'm not too worried about that stub, but I do have a slight bit of concern with the Oceania stub. Nothing major since if it doesn't reach 60, it'll be real close, and it probably does reach 60. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 07:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:::OK, making the template names consistent makes sense (I thought that would be the minor complaint!) [[IIRC]], I took the first ten names from each column on each category page, so there will be some clustering but all parts of the alphabet should be represented. I may do a more detailed check shortly to firm up those figures. [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|<small>#£@%&$?!</small>]] 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Amazing what you can get done on a slow day at work...I've put revised figures above, and full census results [[User:Sjorford/Playpen#footybio-stub census|here]]. It looks like Oceania does only just make it after all, but I think the convenience of splitting the stubs along exact confederation lines makes all these categories worthwhile. Some other country splits may be possible too, although after England and Scotland the largest is Brazil with 71, so that's probably not worthwhile yet. [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|<small>#£@%&$?!</small>]] 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Two more points. One is that there's currently a discussion over whether to have stub categories use adjective or noun forms. I.e., {{cl|European football biography stubs}} or {{cl|Europe footnall biography stubs}}. The other is that if most of those Oceania stubs are Australia stubs, as I would suspect, it might be just as well to leave them sitting in the main category and sorting out an Australia soccer biography stub when the time is right. Depends on how many stubs would be left in the base category if an Oceania were created. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:::On the last point, I know of one kiwi stub-maker who is soccer mad (he's made half a dozen NZ soccer club stubs lately), so don't be surprised if there are quite a few New Zealand players in there as well. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::::At a quick glance, I saw the best part of a dozen NZ soccer players in there (admittedly I had a hand in the creation of a few of them, so they were easier to spot!). That would be 20% of the Oceania footballers. Given how closely associated (no pun intended) the two countries are in terms of soccer (about as close as England and Wales, in terms of leagues and where national players play), I'd stick with oceania-footybio-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 10:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
===Split of {{tl|footy-stub}} and {{tl|euro-footyclub-stub}}===
I have now gone through {{cl|European football club stubs}}. I already proposed {{tl|Sweden-footyclub-stub}} (45 stubs) and {{tl|Scotland-footyclub-stub}} (58). To that I would like to add {{tl|NI-footyclub-stub}} (Northern Ireland, currently 35 stubs) and {{tl|Belgium-footyclub-stub}} (41 stubs). A search through the football clubs by nation categories might bring these countries above threshold level. Next in line would be Italy (currently 29 stubs) and Finland (26). I would also like to move all the club articles that haven't been restubbed continentally yet to a new club stub reservoir, {{tl|footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 14:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
*Footyclub-stub is probably a very good idea. The others look a ''little'' thin - only Scotland is really big enough, but I'm willing to be swayed. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*I support only {{tl|footyclub-stub}}. {{tl|Scotland-footyclub-stub}} is possible, but doesn't look nessessary. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I will indefinitely postpone the splitting of {{tl|euro-footyclub-stub}}, which doesn't imperatively need to be taken care of. However, as I have noted in another proposal, I've now gone through the letters A to G of {{tl|footy-stub}} again, and I've already come across 81 football-related organizations, player unions, associations, federations and confederations. So I would like to propose {{tl|footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 22:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:I've finished the count, and there are 120 "{{tl|footy-org-stub}}s" in {{tl|footy-stub}}. Methinks this is more than enough for a separate stub category. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I've finished restubbing the leftover clubs from {{tl|footy-stub}} to {{tl|footyclub-stub}} - there are 100, so I doubt if {{tl|Africa-footyclub-stub}} is going to get big enough (currently 19). I'd support a merge of these back into the parent category. [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|<small>#£@%&$?!</small>]] 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Most clubs in {{tl|footyclub-stub}} are from Asia (42). Canada has 13, Australia 12, Mexico 9 and 30 are from other countries. So under the given circumstances, I think it's best to move the African clubs from {{tl|Africa-footyclub-stub}} to {{tl|footyclub-stub}}. Once {{tl|Africa-footyclub-stub}} has been empty for 24 hours, it can be speedily deleted (right?). [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 21:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
===Comedy stub===
:''moved from immediately under the message saying "don't put proposals here"''
read [[Category talk:Comedy]] for the message. ''(unsigned comment from anon)''
:''FWIW, the proposal there simply says "We should make a comedy stub." (In other words, the suggestion that we should look there is longer than simply repeating the proposal would have been!)''
*Stubs are split by type of medium, so there would need to be one for comedy books, another for comedy television, one for comedy films, one for comedians... (BTW, some of these already exist: {{tl|comedy-film-stub}} and {{tl|comedian-stub}}). A pure and simple {{tl|comedy-stub}} doesn't fit in very well with the stub hierarchy. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
===Sub-stubs of {{tl|Org-stub}}===
I Propose the following subcategories under {{tl|org-stub}} which is pretty over-full right now:
*{{tl|Charity-stub}}
*<s>{{tl|Political-party-stub}}</s>
*{{tl|Labor-union-stub}}
*{{tl|Frat-stub}} - for Fraternities and Sororities
There are probably more, but that would be a start. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 04:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*Well, for a start you don't need the second and fourth ones: {{tl|Party-stub}} or {{tl|Honor-stub}} already exist (the latter for honor societies - we can use that spelling because these things don't exist outside the US). Charity-stub would probably be very useful. As for "Labor-union-stub", it suffers from the problem that honor-stub can avoid by being a US-only phenomenon; most of the English-speaking world calls them Labour unions. Union-stub might be a reasonable name, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
**Just sampling the fraternities and sororities from [[Category:Organization stubs]] beginning with Alpha, I don't get the impression that they're mostly honor societies. I wouldn't be inclined to put a social-oriented or even a service-oriented fraternity in a category called "honor societies". {{tl|Union-stub}} sounds perfectly reasonable - I hope it's clear that it refers to labor/labour unions, and not something else. I'm new on the project, so I don't know how it works, but I'd be willing to go through the pages of organization stubs and pull out specific types, I just need the go-ahead to create new templates, I guess. Or does someone with some kind of admin status have to do that? [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 08:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
***No, anyone can do it (but make sure to follow the guidelines!) - the main thing is to wait for a week or so, though, for any debate, suggestions, etc. Sometimes the discussion lasts a bit longer than a week if some issues are unresolved (which is why some of the things on this page date back as far as August). As to honor-stub, I'm not from the US so I have no idea what the difference between a fraternity or sorority and an honor society is - I'd assumed they were identical. Perhaps the solution would be to change the scope of honor-stub. Hopefully someone who knows more about the subject can make some suggestions? Anyone...? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
**Honor societies are special types of fraternities/sororities for those who are high academic acheivers. There are lots of other types of frats for professional groups, cultural groups and mostly just for socializing. It would probably be easier to just change what honor-stub is for since there arent many stubs in it. [[User:BL Lacertae|BL Lacertae]] 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
***You mean we would keep the name {{tl|honor-stub}}, but redefine it to be a category for stubs relating to any fraternity or sorority, kind of like the way {{tl|UN-stub}} now applies to any International Organization? I guess if I were to suggest an advantage to the name frat-stub, it would be that it makes such things as {{tl|honor-frat-stub}} and {{tl|service-frat-stub}} feasible; those would be more awkward if the main name were honor-stub. I don't know whether it's worthwhile to plan for so many fraternity and sorority stubs anyway. :-\ [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*To that I would like to add {{tl|footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations, player unions, associations, federations and confederations. I've now gone through the letters A to G of {{tl|footy-stub}}, and I've already come across 81 football-related organizations. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) (Update: I've finished the count, and there are 120 footy-org-stubs in footy-stub.)
**a more generic {{tl|sport-org-stub}} would probably also be useful. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
*I've just noticed that {{tl|UK-org-stub}} exists, and is attached to 308 articles, but <s>isn't</s> wasn't listed anywhere on [[WP:WSS/ST]]. Also, there aren't nearly as many frat-stubs as I thought there were, it turns out. I'm gradually working through org-stub and trying to identify sub-categories with the most entries in them. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 00:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
===Split of party-stub===
While thinking about party-stub (see above, and also the proposal for the renaming of its category at sfd), I realised that it may well be time to consider splitting this one. Currently page 1 of the category doesn't get to the end of the letter B. While I realise that there are currently two sub-cats (Communist parties and Liberal parties), I can't help but wonder whether a better way of splitting this (at the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony) is by country and/or continent. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people know the political parties of a particular country better than they would know - say - Christian-Democrat parties worldwide. So I'd like to propose a rough tally followed by a division based on continent first, plus any countries that seem to have large numbers of parties. Any thoughts? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*sounds ok. would you star with just by continent or would some countries also be broke out at the same time? [[User:BL Lacertae|BL Lacertae]] 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Continent would be an easy place to start, and it would sort things out quite a lot and most countries wouldn't get near threshold anyway. In fact, after a quick look through I'd like to propose:
#{{tl|Africa-party-stub}}
#{{tl|Asia-party-stub}}
#{{tl|Euro-party-stub}}
All of which should easily reach 100 stubs. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Jehovah's Witnesses stub - {{tl|JW-stub}} ===
There is a growing number of [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]-related articles that are being given a {{tl|christianity-stub}} or {{tl|reli-stub}}. It would help those interested in improving these articles to have a stub solely for JWs. --[[User:Konrad West|K.]] <small>AKA</small> [http://www.konradwest.com Konrad West] <small>'''[[User_talk:Konrad West|TALK]]'''</small> 01:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:I lite the idea for the stub, but not the name (we avoid abbrevs wherever possible). This ''might'' be an exception to that rule though - I can't think of anything other referred to as JW (except for one of my country's top sportsmen). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm not a fan of abbreviated stubs either; the only reason I suggested it was the Catholic one being {{tl|RC-stub}}. Anyway, how's {{tl|Jehovahs-Witnesses-stub}}? --[[User:Konrad West|K.]] <small>AKA</small> [http://www.konradwest.com Konrad West] <small>'''[[User_talk:Konrad West|TALK]]'''</small> 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
=== {{tl|Norway-politician-stub}} ===
I was going through {Norway-bio-stub} looking to see if I could find 60 writers. I couldn't, but I did find 64 stubs for Norwegian politicans. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
=== {{tl|Armenia-stub}} ===
Was surprised to find out that there is no stub and no category for [[Armenia]]-related stubs. It's especially unusual since there is {{tl|Armenia-geo-stub}} and almost 100 articles are tagged with it! I'm not sure how many Armenia-related stubs are in Wikipedia right now, but it seems to be necessary root stub/category... --[[User:Monkbel|Monkbel]] 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:Actually that is not at all unusual. For sparsely stubbed countries, it is not at all unusual for there to be more than 60 geo stubs and less than 60 known stubs of other varieties. Armenia is not helped by being essentially a borderland. Depending on how one thinks of Armenia, it could logically be considered part of Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, so trying to track down 60 stubs that could use the proposed stub may be a bit of a challenge. There's a fair number of pre-1918 Armenia related history stubs with {{tl|MEast-hist-stub}} which given that the historical Armenia stretched further south and west than today (all the way to the Mediterrainean) it seemed the best category to place those stubs. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::An extreme example of this is Antarctica. There is only an {{tl|antarctica-geo-stub}}, and it is an exception to our rules in that we've turned a blind eye to the three non-geographic Antarctica stubs that it marks (along side the 450 geographic ones). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::And that's why I think Armenia-stub should be created ASAP - just to be sure any new stubs about Armenia will get this mark. And, gradually, old articles will be found and marked... --[[User:Monkbel|Monkbel]] 07:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:Given the somewhat fluid nature of the region's boundaries over the centuries, and the fact that there aren't other national stubs in the area, would {{tl|caucasus-stub}} be better? It could take stubs from Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and any specifically Caucasus-related items connected with Russia. It's how the geo-stubs started, too, until there became enough to split them out into separate countries. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
::How about a {{tl|caucasus-bio-stub}} as well? I can't name any numbers but I ran across quite a few Georgians and Armenians while sorting {{tl|bio-stub}}s.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 08:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
=== {{tl|Portugal-explorer-stub}} ===
A split between the newly created {{tl|Portugal-bio-stub}} and {{tl|explorer-stub}}; I found 51 (+ or - one or two; please excuse counting mistakes) potential {{tl|Portugal-explorer-stub}} just by going through the {{tl|Portugal-stub}} category.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Splits of {{tl|biologist-stub}} ===
I propose creating {{tl|zoologist-stub}} and {{tl|botanist-stub}} as splits of {{tl|biologist-stub}}. Most of the biologist stubs are explicitaly named either as either zoologists or botanists or one of their sub-disciplins ([[Herpetology]], [[Mammalogy]], e.g.). I don't have exact numbers but I'm sure there will be well over 100 of each, since there are over 800 biologists and a large number of them belong to one of these categories.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
*Sounds like a good idea to me. I've done a lot of sorting on the scientist stubs. And a lot of the biologists might fit into the medical bio stub category, too. --[[User:Etacar11|<font face="Courier"><font color="#66CD00">Etacar11</font></font>]] 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'm leery of actively moving stubs into {{tl|med-bio-stub}}. That stub type has several distinct types of stubs that while they do all relate to medicine, don't have much else in common. There are medical researchers, medical practioners who treated famous people (successfully or not), founders of hospitals or medical societies, people whose claim to fame is the first known person afflicted with some ailment, and those who volunteered to be in a medical experiment. Perhaps we should separate out the medical researchers from the others as a sub type of {{tl|biologist-stub}} that would also be a sub type of {{tl|med-bio-stub}}. I haven't done a detailed census of the group, just noted the diversity of med-bio stubs as I've done other bio stub censuses. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 06:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:* You do have a point. I was referring to the medical researchers...might be good to have a sub stub for that. --[[User:Etacar11|<font face="Courier"><font color="#66CD00">Etacar11</font></font>]] 18:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Split {{tl|France-geo-stub}} ===
About 2000 articles use this stub (see [[:Category:France geography stubs]]). Dividing this by region, as listed in [[Régions in France]] may be the most appropriate way to perform the split. Each region stub category would average 80-90 articles, with a few hundred left over for the original catch-all category. Some regions may not have a sufficient number of stubs to warrant their own stub category, though I haven't looked at the numbers yet to draw such a conclusion. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
: It's extremely doubtful that each region would have a number near the average. We just split Japan by prefecture, and while the average would have been in the 80 stub range, individual prefectures ranged from a low of 35 to a high of almost 300.
I just ran the numbers; they're not exact, but they are good estimates:
* [[Rhône-Alpes]] - 288 → {{tl|RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}}
* [[Basse-Normandie]] - 257 → {{tl|BasseNormandie-geo-stub}}, or {{tl|LowerNormandy-geo-stub}}
* [[Île-de-France (région)|Île-de-France]] - 249 → {{tl|IledeFrance-geo-stub}}
* [[Nord-Pas-de-Calais]] - 93 → {{tl|PasdeCalais-geo-stub}}
* [[Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur]] - 93 → {{tl|Provence-geo-stub}}
* [[Champagne-Ardenne]] - 87 → {{tl|Champagne-geo-stub}}
* [[Midi-Pyrénées]] - 75 → {{tl|Pyrenees-geo-stub}}
* [[Aquitaine]] - 68 → {{tl|Aquitaine-geo-stub}}
* [[Centre (France)|Centre]] - 68 → {{tl|CentreFrance-geo-stub}}
* Poitou-Charentes - 63
* Bretagne/Brittany - 62
* Lorraine - 56
* Pays de la Loire - 55
* Picardie/Picardy - 54
* Languedoc-Roussillon - 49
* Haute-Normandie - 43
* Bourgogne - 33
* Franche-Comté - 31
* Auvergne - 26
* Limousin - 24
* Alsace - 21
* Corse/Corsica - 12
Regions to which I've linked probably deserve their own stubs; others may need it in the future, but should use the general one for now. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:The top six look definitely splittable (using a "pass mark" of 75). I must admit some surprise that Brittany/Bretagne/Breizh doesn't come out higher. With Ile-de-France, would a separate Paris-geo-stub be useful, or would that be gilding the fleur-de-lys? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::Keep in mind that not all articles have the region name listed; I did a search using the [[département]] information, but that wasn't always listed either. And in the case you cited, I only looked for ''Bretagne''; I've updated the count to include the results from searching for ''Brittany''. I couldn't find any stubs using ''Breizh''. Note also that I limited my seach to articles currently marked with <nowiki>{{France-geo-stub}}</nowiki>. I've also updated the counts for ''Nord-Pas-de-Calais'' after refining the search - 23 articles with both département names, and 35 each using one name = 93 articles.
::I don't think we need a separate Paris stub. None of these proposed stub categories will fill two pages, which is not an overwhelming number to search through. For the record, 130 of those stubs are for Paris, which makes it the ''second''-largest département, after Calvados (in Basse-Normandie) with 206. Rhône is third, with 90.[[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 02:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Not 100% sure but Breizh may only refer to the Breton language anyway. Did you add in those marked "Corsica" and "Picardy" to those marked "Corse" and "Picardie"? :) BTW, when it comes to making the templates, I propose that we ignore accents and stick to the common English names where they exist (Brittany/Corsica/Normandy, etc). It makes sense to use accents in articles and category names, but I think we can make do without them for the templates themselves. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I've updated counts to include Picardy and Corsica (I already had Corsica, but didn't include it for some reason), and I've added suggested names for the new stubs, taking into account your concerns. Since some region names are long, I've truncated where it seemed appropriate, using names that would be most recognized and least ambiguous. Our current cut-off is Midi-Pyrénées, then? That'll give us 7 new stubs/cats. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 15:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::I suggest using {{tl|CentreFrance-geo-stub}} instead of just {{tl|Centre-geo-stub}}, which can mean just anything. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Definitely. I also wouldn't see any problem with {{tl|RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}}. As to what to do with Normandy, though... BasseNormandie might be better, but I'd be easily swayed either way. And yes to the top seven. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I've updated it to {{tl|CentreFrance-geo-stub}}, though it probably won't be created anyway, and {{tl|RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}} is short enough - and more descriptive too. There's at least one reason I'd prefer using {{tl|BasseNormandie-geo-stub}} over {{tl|LowerNormandy-geo-stub}}: the term ''Basse-Normandie'' appears in most articles that need to be stubbed with this template. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 00:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'll support the top nine above "on spec", and anything that hits 60 on the basis on an accurate count, as and when. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I've created the first seven stub templates and categories. Let's see how these fill out before creating anything else, to determine how accurate the counts were. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 16:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:I just split the Rhône-Alpes stubs - there were 372 that I found, including articles that weren't previously stubbed, or had a stub other than {{tl|France-geo-stub}}. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:I've been doing the Basse-Normandie split - 468 articles so far, and I just found a whole whack of 'em that have either no stub or no category... [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Poland bio stubs split ===
Came across three new stub types that would each get over 60 stubs from {{tl|Poland-bio-stub}}.
* {{tl|Poland-mil-bio-stub}} 91 stubs
* {{tl|Poland-noble-stub}} 201 stubs
* {{tl|Poland-writer-stub}} 104 stubs
Absent any objections, I'll create them in about a week. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 20:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:Support all these. I earlier suggested US-mil-bio-stub, to which there was muted protest. I'd suggest we go ahead with such splits by country, as and when viable. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::Sounds good. I suspect that UK-mil-bio-stub, and similar for France and Germany, won't be far behind. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 08:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
=== {{tl|material-stub}} ===
I've come across a fair number of stubs that are about some sort of material - a type of cloth, a type of wax, etc. These tend to get sorted into really random categories that don't really fit... e.g. [[Carnauba wax]] as a food-stub. [[Ouricury wax]], which is currently just a stub, would also fit this. --[[User:Alynna.Kasmira|Alynna]] 02:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:ISTR that this has been suggested before, but by now there are probably enough stubs that it will be quite useful. A lot of them are probably currently maked {{tl|fashion-stub}} - or maybe even {{tl|tool-stub}}! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've encountered several stubs in the last couple of days that should have been {{tl|material-stub}}s. I just put some kind of textile in {{tl|tech-stub}} for lack of a better place. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 05:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
=== european writer stubs ===
I counted the european writer stubs. Here are all the countries that received over 30 stubs:
*[[Ireland]] (60)
*[[Russia]] (41)
*[[Poland]] (40)
*[[Croatia]] (38)
*[[Sweden]] (31)
*[[Norway]] (31)
[[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] counted 104 Polish writers by going through the Poland-bios. This means that these numbers might be much lower than the actual number of stub that would fit into a writer stub category for that particular country. Therefore I propose creating {{tl|Ireland-writer-stub}}, {{tl|Russia-writer-stub}}, and {{tl|Poland-writer-stub}} (that has however already been proposed above).--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 11:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:Yes to Ireland, Poland, and Russia. In fact the first two have been found to have 60 stubs and I just finished Russia, and will be proposing Russia-writer and two others below. I've counted Norway, and there are not enough for that country. I was going to count Sweden next, but I could do Croatia first if people want. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:Although I think it is unlikely that these would get more than 60 stubs, the [[Czech Republic]] had 26 stubs, the [[Netherlands]] 24, and [[Hungary]] 21.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 16:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:I found 73 writer stubs for Sweden, which was surprising as there are only a little over 300 stubs plus two sub types in Sweden. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 05:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
=== {{mountain-stub}} ===
This should be created. It is a valid stub, and could be used in articles. --[[User:WikiFanatic|WikiFanatic]]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiFanatic|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/WikiFanatic|Contribs]] 20:21, 15 October 2005 (CDT)</sup>
*I gather that the working idea is for any mountain to be classified under Geo-stubs by ___location; e.g., a stub about a mountain in Indonesia would go under {{tl|Indonesia-geo-stub}}. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 01:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
*No to Mountain-stub, for exactly the reason GTBacchus says. We've already deleted hill-stub and river-stub (which were created without being proposed) - these go directly against the stub hierarchy and are explicitly given as examples of bad splits of geo-stub at [[WP:STUB#New_stub_categories]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|fort-stub}}; {{tl|mil-rank-stub}}===
Feasible country-based splits of {{tl|mil-stub}} are getting a bit thin on the ground, but here's a couple of pretty clearly defined sub-categories. Fortifications and bases are certainly over "viability" level; ranks are there or thereabouts, if we include things that are technically posts and appointments, which I think is the intuitive thing to do anyway. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:Mmmm. Forts are a ''little'' problematical for the same reason as mountains (above) - a lot of them are listed simply as geographic locations. In this one case, though, it might be a reasonable exception to the rule. Ranks though would make perfect sense. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::Unlike "mountain-" though, I'm not proposing a wholly new stub-cross-categorisation, but a sub-category of {{tl|mil-stub}}, and hence a sort of an existing (and still oversized) stub-cat. (That being where I found 'em; there may of course be more besides.) A lot of them are already double-stubbed as ___location-geo-stubs too, that much is true. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::There are a huge number of these in the varius geo-stub categories. There must be more of them double-stubbed than i thought! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Not ''consistently'' double-stubbed, or anything shocking like that... There's about 100 in the mil-stub hierarchy, though. (Not all of them actual pieces of geography.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
=== split of {{tl|Physics-stub}} ===
I propose adding a quantum physics stub. Like relativity, this is a major area of physics that is in need of distinction. If you do a search for quantum physics, you will find that a large percentage of the articles fit this category.[[User:The1physicist|the1physicist]] 04:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:I have no doubt that this is both a pressing split, and a viable one: there's over 1200 in the unsplit category. OTOH, is it perhaps ''too'' broad? Ideally one would split this category up to about say 6-10 ways, if there's a sensible scheme for doing so. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::Well gee, if you want another one I would suggest Theoretical Physics. I think between Relativity, Quantum Physics and Theoretical Physics we'll have covered nearly all physics stubs. If I think of more, I'll let you know.[[User:The1physicist|the1physicist]] 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::That sounds even ''more'' broad. My point is, if there are (by some chance) 800 stubs that come in the "quantum-" sub-cat, it's in no way an optimal split. Can you give us at least a rough estimate of the numbers involved? What about, say, particle-physics-? thermodynamics-? mechanics-? I'll drop a note at WP:Physics and see who else wants to chime in. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I think theoretical physics would be way too broad: about 80% of the stubs could fit there so that wouldn't solve the problem. I'd recommend at least particle physics and optics. Would be a good idea to get something to cover condensed matter/solid state physics also. With relativity that would split off some relatively clean chunks. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] | [[User talk:Laurascudder|Talk]] 05:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I think theoretical physics is a bad idea, just as experimental would be, because all physics topics would fall into one of those two, not leaving room for other types of stubs. It seems to me more rational to make field-oriented stub categories, like the mentioned quantum physics, optics, and perhaps also astrophysics (I see alot of stubs on that, too) and amybe electromagnetism(?). I also think relatvity is not a good choice, because its more of a general topic, and overlaps with lots of things in QM and optics and al other fields, right? [[User:Karol Langner|Karol]] 08:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the suggestions, both. Any guestimates as to how many stubs each of those suggestions would cover? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::I went through 200 physics stubs in the middle and counted how I would classify them (assuming I'd put as many on there as I thought worked) and got these numbers (the projected total follows the actual number)
:::::*Optics: 16/96
:::::*Quantum: 41/246
:::::*Particle: 38/228
:::::*Sub-atomic: 17/102
:::::*Condensed matter: 25/150
:::::*Relativity: 3/18
:::::*E&M: 22/132
:::::*Astrophysics: 8/48
:::::*Theoretical: 75/450
:::::I think my section of the alphabet (F-L) had an abnormally low number of astro stubs (and it only got relativity stubs still in [[:Category:Physics stubs]]). — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] | [[User talk:Laurascudder|Talk]] 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Just to put in my two cents... Why don't we divide the stubs as much as possible by the categories physicists actually use? So definitely don't use "subatomic." Also, theoretical still seems big. What kind of theoretical physics is it? All kinds, or is it "fundamental" theories, i.e. particle theory + GR? (I guess there aren't many articles on theoretical condensed mater anyway...) If nothing else, we might split up "theoretical" into "theoretical" and "string"...? That's what the seminars at Berkeley do. Good list overall, though. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::If there's a more useful sub-div of the "particle" stubs, all the better. Types of particles? Actual particles, vs. particle theories and other -related stuff? If not, particle-stub or particle-physics-stub is fine, just a tad hefty, based on the above estimate. I think there's pretty broad agreement that "theoretical-" is way too, well, broad. string-theory-stub would be grand (if the numbers pan out), but surely the "other theoretical" could be much better defined, and less confusingly named. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::: It depends on what all Laura was counting as "theory". It's easy to split off condensed matter theory and stuff like that. But if we're just dealing with particle physics stuff, let me try to give some very detailed possible subdivisions into stubs:
::::::::* Articles on particles: ''particle-stub''
::::::::* Experimental particle physics: ''particle-expt-stub'', maybe along with:
::::::::** Equipment, accelerators, etc.: ''particle-apparatus-stub''
::::::::* Particle Theory: ''particle-theory-stub'', with the following alternatives:
::::::::** Current particle physics theory: ''standard-model-stub''
::::::::** String theory: ''string-theory-stub''
:::::::: Those are the best I can do on the names, at least. To subdivide theory any more would require people with masters degrees in physics to do the stub sorting. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Hrm. I'm not at all keen on a general "resplit" of theory, but I could see that particle-theory-stub in addition to a more general particle-stub might well be feasible. Would that also be viable for quantum-stubs, or would quantum-field- and quantum-mechanics- make more sense? (I note the main "subfields of physics" template hass each of these at the top level.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::: Yes, quantum-mechanics- and quantum-field- would both make sense, and maybe quantum-field- could take a lot of stuff that would otherwise have gone in particle-theory- (or maybe such articles would just get counted as both). As for splitting theory, it's the big one, so I thought it made sense to give the best idea I could for dividing it. The splits on experiment would be beneficial, at least in terms of thinking how small a list would need to be before I (as an experimentalist) would actually go down the list and try to fill things in. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 01:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::would subatomic-physics-stub be useful, or too vague, or too broad? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Isn't that essentially the same ground as particle physics? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::::It would be a narrower category, as not all particles can be found in atoms. I would think particle would be a better choice, but I haven't checked out the distribution of stubs thoroughly yet. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] | [[User talk:Laurascudder|Talk]] 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:I have no objections to the list proposed by [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]]. Very nice job.[[User:The1physicist|the1physicist]] 00:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::Just to be clear, if all those on my list existed, many stubs would fit in 3 of the categories. I simply wanted info on all those suggested so far. I would personally recommend the very broad ones on the list not be implemented and that we go with either particle- or sub-atomic- but not both. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] | [[User talk:Laurascudder|Talk]] 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Noted; personally I don't think triple-stubbing is the heinous crime some would make it out to be, either. Thanks for the counts, that's a huge help. On that basis, I'd certainly support "optics-, "condensed-matter-" (can we just call this one "mechanics-stub"?) and "electromag-". I'd strongly oppose "theoretical". Quantum is obviously viable, but perhaps a tad ''too'' big? Is there a natural further split? I'd be pretty easy either way on that. On the particles, perhaps create ''both'' "sub-atomic-" and "particle-", making the former a sub-category (so that double-stubbing on these isn't necessary)? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I'd agree with you except that the terms [[condensed matter physics]] and [[mechanics]] are not the same in physics usage. Condensed matter describes systems with large numbers of interacting degrees of freedom: a lot of superfluids, crystals, magnetic materials, etc. Most of the stubs I saw here were named theories of materials and a few crystal scattering terms. I'm not sure how useful optics and E&M would be as distinct stub categories. I'll run the whole thing by [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics]] again. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] | [[User talk:Laurascudder|Talk]] 04:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Oops, there I go, mixing up continuum mechanics and condensed matter. D'oh. "condensate-stub"? The numbers would seem to indicate those would be useful categories, if only because if they're useless to everyone else, all the more reason to hive them off separately... But certainly, it'd be good to get as broad a consensus on said utility as possible. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Russia bio stubs ===
I just finished a census of the Russian bio stubs and found three potential sub types:
* {{tl|Russia-politician-stub}} 65 stubs
* {{tl|Russia-writer-stub}} 71 stubs
and possibly
* {{tl|Russia-mil-bio-stub}} 55 stubs, plus another 35 stubs if the cosmonaut stubs are included here.
I'm not certain if we should include cosmonaut stubs in the mil-bio-stubs, since technically they aren't notable for what they did militarily, and since Russia-bio will be at <400 without splitting out the mil-bio stubs, it's not all that urgent a split for Russia. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 06:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
*Support from me (especially now that I've tidied up the typos in your proposal ;) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'm against including cosmonauts in the mil-stub, they should be included in {{tl|astronaut-stub}}.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 18:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::If cosomonauts were included it would be to change the existing double stub of {{tl|Russia-bio-stub}} {{tl|astronaut-stub}} into the double stub of {{tl|Russia-mil-bio-stub}} and {{tl|astronaut-stub}}. I'm definitely ''not'' proposing dropping the {{tl|astronaut-stub}} from their bios. As I've said, I'm neutral enough on the idea that I'm not in favor of either doing or not doing that, but it had enough internal logic that I thought it ought to be proposed. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
=== {{tl|law-bio-stub}} splits ===
I propose splitting {{tl|law-bio-stub}} into lawyers and judges. I'm not sure what to call the splits; what do you call lawyers in British English? As far as American English is concerned, it could be lawyer (sounds the best in my opinion), attorney, advocate, or council; although the latter 2 are a little unclear as to what they refer to. Aren't judges called justices in British English?
As to the numbers:
I looked through the first 58 (I know that's not very random, but OK) and 30 of them were lawyers and 20 were judges. 3 or 4 were mentioned as being both, and I counted them as both.
Further splits for {{tl|law-bio-stub}} could be {{tl|law-academic-bio-stub}}, for law professors and the such, but I think it would be better to get the lawyers and the judges out of the way first.
Further splits of the lawyers and the judges would probably be by nationality but I doubt that more than US and UK will make sense.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:With <400 articles in {{tl|law-bio-stub}}, I don't see the urgency, especially when it is all too likely that we would have a slow but continuous trickle of stubs from {{tl|lawyer-stub}} to {{tl|judge-stub}}. I say just leave this be and allow {tl|US-bio-stub}} and {{tl|UK-law-bio-stub}} if there are 60+ known stubs, but that would be mainly to help split {tl|US-law-bio-stub}} and {tl|UK-bio-stub}} not {tl|law-bio-stub}}. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:Why would we have a "slow but continuous trickle of stubs"?--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::Whenever a lawyer with a stub article becomes a judge. It wouldn't happen often, and we could hope the occassion would inspire someone to make that person's article into a full article, but it will happen. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 23:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The generic term in BE is just "lawyer", though there is of course the split into [[solicitor]]s and [[barristers]]. Judges are also generally referred to as judges; "justice" occurs as part of the title of some judges (justice of the peace, Lord Justice so-and-so), but not, unlike the US, as a synonym or direct alternative to "judge". Of course, I say "British", but England and Wales have system of law and set of terminology, and Scotland another ([[sheriff court]], [[procurator fiscal]]...).
That's all by the by, though. I agree with Caerwine, why not, a) not bother? There are many more pressing splits to hand. Or b), split by nationality, first. It's not even a terribly "clean" split, since many practice both at once, and obviously most judges will previously have been lawyers, so we could end up with a lot of double-stubbing. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Germany-geo-stub}} splits===
I'm pretty sure that every land (the [[Germany|German]] equivelant to the American states) will deserve it's own cat except maybe Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. Therefore I propose the following:
*{{tl|Baden-Wuerttemberg-geo-stub}} ({{BW-geo-stub}} as redirect)
*{{tl|Bavaria-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Brandenburg-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Hessen-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania-geo-stub}} ({{MWP-geo-stub}} as redirect)
*{{tl|Lower-Saxony-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|North-Rhine-Westphalia-geo-stub}} ({{NRW-geo-stub}} as redirect)
*{{tl|Rhineland-Palatinate-geo-stub}} ({{RP-geo-stub}} as redirect)
*{{tl|Saarland-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Saxony-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Saxony-Anhalt-geo-stub}} ({{tl|SA-geo-stub}} is [[South Africa]]; thereore no redirect)
*{{tl|Schleswig-Holstein-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Thuringia-geo-stub}}
We can add Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen as necessary once we've gotten these out of the way.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 18:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:I suggest getting rid of a few hyphens:
:*{{tl|BadenWuerttemberg-geo-stub}}
:*{{tl|MecklenburgWesternPomerania-geo-stub}}
:*{{tl|LowerSaxony-geo-stub}}
:*{{tl|NorthRhineWestphalia-geo-stub}}
:*{{tl|RhinelandPalatinate-geo-stub}}
:*{{tl|SaxonyAnhalt-geo-stub}}
:*{{tl|SchleswigHolstein-geo-stub}}
:WP:WSS seems to use the hyphens mainly to distinguish the separate parts of stubs, in this case the region (the ''land''), the nature of the stub (geo) and the stub itself. This can be compared to WestVirginia, SouthDakota and SouthAfrica. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 18:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::It would seem to be about due. Agree with Aecis on the hyphens, but I'd have to oppose the abbreviations, which strike me as even less standard, familiar, or useful than the US 2-letter postal codes for states, which we keep trying to prevail on people not to use. I'd be less against "Germany-BW-geo-stub", etc, as redirects, if people were to find those useful in doing the split (or otherwise).
::However, there's <900 of these stubs, split between 13 proposed sub-stub-types (and 16 lander total). I'll betcha dollars to jelly doughnuts that some of these are doing to be below the 60 stubs "viability" threshold. Anyone fancy doing a count? Undersized ones should be delayed, or grouped if some logical criterion suggests itself (though even one split will reduce g-g-s below 4 pages). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, BW and NRW are known and, especially NRW, used in Germany. The problem with Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania that in German it's called Mecklenburg-Vorpommern making an abbreviation problematic. We could use {{Mecklenburg-geo-stub}}, but that could also be interpreted as only including Mecklenburg. I think we could start with the "safe laender" Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, eg; but I could also volunteer to count them.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::Well, I didn't say ''totally'' unused and unknown: just moreso (at least in English) than abbreviations we've already rejected using. I'd happily agree with starting with the "safer" ones. (Say, the top four of the following (thanks, MM).) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:I just did a quick google search (restricted to ''en.wikipedia.org''), and got the following:
:* Bavaria - 82
:* Baden-Württemberg - 56
:* North Rhine-Westphalia - 50
:* Lower Saxony - 48
:* Berlin - 37
:* Thuringia - 30
:* Saxony-Anhalt - 29
:* Hesse - 28
:* Saxony - 26
:* Rhineland-Palatinate - 22
:* Schleswig-Holstein - 19
:* Brandednburg - 17
:* Hamburg - 14
:* Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania - 7
:* Saarland - 5
:* Bremen - 5
:Note, however, that some articles may identify in which district a ___location is in, but not the state; for example, [[Apensen]]. This skews the numbers downward. In order to get a better count, we need to add totals for searches on each district, excluding the state name (all articles which have the state name have already been captured). For example, [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22This+German+___location+article+is+a+stub.%22+stade+-%22lower+saxony%22&btnG=Search googling for ''site:en.wikipedia.org "This German ___location article is a stub." stade -"lower saxony"'']. This returns 2 results, increasing the count for ''Lower Saxony'' to 50. Unfortunately, there are '''many''' districts; you could probably search for them [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%28site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22This+German+___location+article+is+a+stub.%22+-%22lower+saxony%22%29+%28+Schaumburg+OR+Soltau-Fallingbostel+OR+Stade+OR+Uelzen+OR+Vechta+OR+Verden+OR+Wesermarsch+OR+Wittmund+OR+Wolfenb%C3%BCttel%29&btnG=Search in batches] (google has a 32-term limit on searches) - I count 13 more articles for Lower Saxony, giving 61 total, when searches for all districts are included. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 20:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::I wouldn't have thought Germany was yet at the stage of needing splitting - for the most part I'd be happier splitting out a few of the remaining countries before regions in countries, though some regional splits (where the stub numbers are very high) are a bit more necessary. France, the UK, US, Australia and Japan all needed to be split - all had close to or over 2000 stubs. There aren't yet 1000 German geo-stubs, and if the count above is anything to go by, Bavaria's the only one of the Lander that reaches threshold anyway. If we're not careful, we'll be in serious danger of creating so many regional geo-stubs that we don't know what we've got and what we haven't. If we do go ahead with it, I'd be strongly against redirects from abbreviations, BTW. Nowhere else has then, since they can be ambiguous, so Germany shouldn't either. I'm also beginning to wonder whether the mountain-stubbers have a point. Perhaps we should be thinking primarily of splitting by country (and in some cases by region), and then by type of feature. Not having mountain-stub per se, but having a Switzerland-mountain-stub as a subset of Switzerland-geo-stub, for instance. Charging into smaller and smaller regional splits may be counter-productive, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::There's over 800, so it's definitely at the stage of splitting, by our own guidelines on such. Remember there's only 16 laender, so that means several of them will certainly be "viable", unlike the issues with US states and UK counties. I'd in theory agree with you on type-of-feature, but in practice the vast majority of geo-stubs seem to be settlements, so it wouldn't generally get us very far. OTOH, if someone suddenly created stubs on all 300 Scottish Munros, say, it'd be quite attractive. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:I don't like the proposed redirects at all. BW is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2code for Botswana, and RP is a reserved ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the Philipines (due to usage in another set of international two-letter codes). However, any that meet the 60 stub threshold, I say go for it! As for names, I suggest aqueesing together spaces but keeping hyphens that are part of the name, ala {{tl|Mecklenburg-WesternPomerania-geo-stub}} and {{tl|NorthRhine-Westphalia-geo-stub}} [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I counted the first page of stubs (199 stubs) and here are my results:
*Baden-Württemberg: 27
*Bavaria: 23
*North Rhine-Westphalia: 23
*Thuringia: 22
*Lower Saxony: 20
*Schleswig-Holstein: 17
*Rhineland-Palatinate: 15
*Hesse: 12
*Saxony-Anhalt: 10
*Saxony: 9
*Berlin: 7
*Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: 6
*Brandenburg: 2
*Hamburg: 2
*Saarland: 1
*Bremen: 1
There are currently a total of almost 860 stubs in this category. Assuming that these numbers are representative of all the stubs in the category (which they should be more or less, since they are all german names for towns, eliminating the possibility of a language bias), the first six or seven laender should get a cat. If someone wants me to count all of the stubs, I'll do that but I don't think it's necessary.
As to the proposal of splitting by feature: the feature, which received the most stubs was (except settlement, of course) river (6 stubs), not nearly enough to justify a cat.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:My experience with Japan stub sorting suggests that names ''may'' cluster, though that may be specific to Japan, whose place names in english most often start with the letters H, K, M, N, S, T and Y. I don't think we need to count all the stubs, but I also don't think we need seven new stubs (yet). The top three in each of our lists are the same, so let's start with those, and see what we're left with after the initial split.
:I'm also '''not''' in favour of the redirects, and I'd like to suggest trimming the stub names down a bit where it makes sense to do so. I think splitting by feature should be done ''in addition'' to geographical splitting, and further that this type of split be done at the country level only. Hence, mountains would receive two stubs - one for the region they're in, one for their country's mountain stub. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|US-midwest-road-stub}}; {{tl|US-northeast-road-stub}}; {{tl|US-south-road-stub}}; {{tl|US-west-road-stub}}===
{{tl|US-road-stub}} is splittable, but equally, many statesworths are well below the normal creation threshold. I suggest we follow the same split as with the {{tl|US-geo-stub}} subtree: four regional sub-categories, to be resplit as viable, using the "-road-stub" terminology for consistency and inclusivity. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'd postpone this one until we see what happens with all the highway stubs at SFD. Ideally, I'd knock them together, so that every Foo-state-highway-stub is changed to Foo-road-stub, allowing it to include all roads and streets in the state as well. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::Technically, it doesn't really depend on that, though, as it'll make very little difference to the numbers in US-road-stub: the splits would be viable, but not necessitated, either way. My deletions would add a couple of dozen back into the general category; my renamings would allow some, probably only a handful, "back in" to state-specific categories that weren't "State Highways" and the like. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but any renamed "State Highway" categories would have to be children of your new categories, no? So they'd be stubbed then restubbed a few days later. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I agree with Grutness here... it would be too much work to go back and fix things (California has over 100 stub articles alone for example). Let's wait until we see what happens at SFD. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]])''' 03:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Subcatting them that way would make sense, sure. So I'll agree it's sensible procedurally to wait, certainly; which presumably is what'd happen anyway. (I certainly wasn't about to "speedy" these...) I just don't see it why it would logically effect the outcome, either way. So if you meant postpone creation, certainly, I took you to mean postpone consideration.
::::Rschen, I'm not proposing anything here that would affect those California stubs ''at all''; certainly not recatting them as US-west-road-stub, which would be pointless, nay, counterproductive. Nor would it affect anything in any other stub category of feasible size -- yours included. The point is to use it for the ''unsorted'' articles in US-road-stub, of which you'll recall complaining about the excessive size. (OTOH, fixing 100 stub categorisations is hardly infeasible, where required -- I believe it's somewhat traditional for Grutness to scoff lightly at such propositions at about this point...) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Commonwealth-mil-stub}} or {{tl|Oceania-mil-stub}}; and {{tl|Europe-mil-stub}}===
Doesn't look like any further country-specific mil-stub categories are going to come close to 60. The above two would do so as a catch-all (well, catch-some, at least), and would also be useful for a number of "generic British commonwealth military" and "generic European military" stubs, of which there are also a number. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:Europe definitely. Willing to be swayed on the Commonwealth one - from the point of view of military relationships it does make a little more sense than regional ones, but it does go against precedent in other stub types. Certainly there is overlap in, say Australia, New Zealand, Canadian, and South African military so it might work. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, makes no sense geographically: pesky imperialists. Based on a count-down of mil-stubs, it seems to be the only one likely to fly at all for these (at least until someone comes along and creates a shedful more of 'em). Though adding in counts from mil-ship-stubs might make Oz and/or NZ "viable" (either individually, or as Australasia-/Oceania-mil-stub), if those were then systematically double-stubbed. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Oceania would be my preference (and probably that of many NZ editors - the term Australasia's not universally accepted here - in any case we use oceania for most of these things). I'd have suggested ANZAC, but while the term nowadays refers to just about anything that is done jointly by Australia and New Zealand, its army origins would make it ambiguous. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::::There's indeed a fair few Oz naval stubs, putting that possibility into the 50s, as against a couple of dozen more for the (unsorted) C/w as a whole. I'd prefer the latter as it'd get more things out of mil-stub, but either will do in a pinch, so I'm adding your suggestion as an option to the proposal. Anyone else have a view on this? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Primate-stub}}===
We've got about 75 primate stubs that I can count that are tagged as just mammal stubs. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 19:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds logical to me: parent is quite largeish, if not quite fissile-unstable yet. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|Death-stub}}===
Going through Category:Death, I thought that a [[Anetode/Death-stub|Death-stub]] might be of some use. --[[User:Anetode|Anetode]] 23:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:There are lots of articles on death, sure - but how many ''stubs'' are there? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::Here's a perliminary list of around 50:
#[[Grave (burial)]]
#[[Bier]]
#[[Crypt]]
#[[Gravedigger]]
#[[Post mortem interval]]
#[[Livor mortis]]
#[[Columbarium]]
#[[Rigor mortis]]
#[[Necronym]]
#[[Necrosis]]
#[[Human Tissue Authority]]
#[[Funeral director]]
#[[Agonal respiration]]
#[[Algor mortis]]
#[[Dead on arrival]]
#[[Death by natural causes]]
#[[Death education]]
#[[Death rattle]]
#[[Instant death]]
#[[Fratricide]]
#[[Matricide]]
#[[Omnicide]]
#[[Human body disposal]]
#[[Roman Funerals and Burial]]
#[[Bisomus]]
#[[Clinical death]]
#[[Ankou]]
#[[Black Racer]]
#[[Black Flash]]
#[[Death (Marvel Comics)]]
#[[Castrum doloris]]
#[[Chambered long barrow]]
#[[Chariot burial]]
#[[Corbelled tomb]]
#[[Court cairn]]
#[[Death mask]]
#[[Domus de Janas]]
#[[Dyss]]
#[[Eulogy]]
#[[Excarnation]]
#[[Funeral march]]
#[[Gallery grave]]
#[[Giants' grave]]
#[[Grave goods]]
#[[Hogback (sculpture)]]
#[[Military funeral]]
#[[Naveta]]
#[[Potter's field]]
#[[Pyre]]
#[[Sepulchre]]
#[[Ship burial]]
#[[Maschalismos]]
#[[Tomb]]
::There are dozens more in other death subcategories as well. --[[User:Anetode|Anetode]] 01:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::This is the stub I'd use for [[The Custom of the Sea]], which I'm currently unsure what to do with... {{tl|water-stub}} is the best I can find. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 05:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Created stub. --[[User:Anetode|Anetode]] 07:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::::The waiting period for this is usually 1 week. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 18:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Sorry. If there is no consensus approval in 1 week I will withdraw the stub as per rule 4 of the proposal procedure. --[[User:Anetode|Anetode]] 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
==={{tl|mil-unit-stub}} & {{cl|Military unit stubs}}===
For around a dozen articles on military unit types, and the 80 or so specific unsorted battalions, regiments, brigades, etc. (More if the US, UK, etc, ones already sorted are double-stubbed.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
===Struct-stubs===
Currently, struct-stub is a bit of a mess. We've been splitting by ___location and also by building use. So we've got Germany, UK, US, Canada, India, Masts, Churches, Universities... The whole thing needs a bit of work. Having said that, the following would be useful:
*''if'' we're splitting by building use, {{tl|Stadium-stub}} would be very handy. there are a lot of these in the various struct-stub categories, and more marked with sport-stub
*''if'' we're splitting by ___location, either {{tl|Australia-struct-stub}} (now up to nearly 60) or {{tl|Oceania-struct-stub}} (close to 75) would be very useful (I'd favour the latter, but then again I'm biased, given my ___location). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:I've been counting the stadiums in {{tl|footy-stub}}, and I've found 102 stadium stubs. So this one should easily make it. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::BTW, the number of Coeania struct stubs should get very close to 100 after I've finished re-stubbing the Melbourne categories. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
===More geo-stubs===
I've also completed the latest tally, and the following look to be ripe to split:
*{{tl|Guinea-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Iraq-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|NewJersey-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|Staffordshire-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Nottinghamshire-geo-stub}}
*{{tl|NewBrunswick-geo-stub}}, {{tl|Nunavut-geo-stub}}, and {{tl|Manitoba-geo-stub}}
Of these, the only real problem one is New Brunswick - it would almost certainly mean getting rid of maritimes-geo-stub and dropping the dozen or so Prince Edward Island stubs back into Canada-geo-stub (which would be considerably smaller by then anyway. NB has over 100 stubs of its own, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Looks like [[user:Morwen]] jumped the gun a bit and has made the two English county ones in the couple of hours since I made the proposal... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:I agree on all these splits, and also agree on the elimination of {{tl|Maritimes-geo-stub}}; however, I think we should '''not''' delete it immediately, since it is probable that other PEI ___location stubs will appear soon, perhaps warranting its own stub/cat - I'd like to avoid multiple re-stubbing of articles. Also, I was just going to go ahead and make the Canadian templates, given previous precedent (and current criteria) for the provincial stubs. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 19:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::OK - I'll load up the stub-splits page. The problem with keeping the maritimes stub for now is that PEI only has 10-15 stubs at the moment, but you're right about re-stubbing twice, so I'll agree to let it stand. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I've actually completed the Canadian splits; the Maritimes category is down to 18 articles. I propose that it be deleted, and merged to the Canada geo stubs (as you mentioned) by the end of October, if it hasn't reached a minimum of 40 articles by then (note that I'll be creating some stubs). If it does reach that minimum, I propose we ''rename'' it to {{tl|PEI-geo-stub}} or {{tl|PrinceEdwardIsland-geo-stub}}, or raise the issue again in this forum. Feel free to set a different minimum requirement, keeping in mind the date, of course. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mindmatrix]] 03:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::Well done - and sorry that i didn't get the lists there in time (I got sidetracked working on the renamed malborne categories). I've added the NJ, iraq and guinea lists. As for PEI, even with a small number it might make sense to finish it off and change it over - and do Yukon and NWT, for that matter, since they're the only three provinces/territories left to do. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 03:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
===Painters===
Another overpopulated category is {{cl|Artist stubs}}. I noticed that there is no daughter category for painters. A first impression is that there are more than enough stubs about painters for a separate stub template and matching category. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +"artist stubs" +painter" returned no less than 452 hits, so this one should easily reach the threshold. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 14:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:If we do this, a {{tl|Sculptor-stub}} would also possibly be useful. The other option, of course, would be by nationality. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
===Splitting {{tl|India-geo-stub}}===
I have a suggestion. Currently, all India related geo stubs are bunched together and the page is gradually becoming unwieldy and simply a long list of places in alphabetical order. I think if these stubs are re-organized in [[States of India|state]]-wise sub-stubs (like the existing ones: {{tl|TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Kerala-geo-stub}}), the page will have a lot of value-addition. I may also add that without coming here, I added two more such sub-stubs: {{tl|Jharkhand-geo-stub}} and {{tl|Bihar-geo-stub}}. [[User:Mairi|Mairi]] pointed out the significance of proposing creation of sub-stubs here for valuable comments and observations of other users. I think that all India related geo-stubs may be split into state-wise stubs for better organization/ indexing of all India related geo-stubs. Thus, there will ultimately be as many India geo sub-stubs as are states in India – for example: {{tl|Gujarat-geo-stub}}, {{tl|UttarPradesh-geo-stub}} and so on. This will make the work of user/s interested in developing geo-stubs of a particular state of India, and I may repeat shall surely be a value addition to India-geo-stubs page. I invite suggestions and further comments. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:as with the recently split Japan-geo-stub, this is probably a good idea. Again, as with Japan, the way to proceed will be to see which Indian states pass the threshold for splitting (I'd suggest about 80 stubs), and split them off first. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Uncyclopedia Parallel/Parody Article stub? ===
:''moved from the top of the page''
Many of the entries on Wikipedia have paralell/[[parody]] entries on [[Uncyclopedia]], which is another wiki that was designed to parody Wikipedia with all it's content being purposefully false and untrue, including it's claim to be a "content-free" encyclopedia. It would be interesting to have a stub that links to the same article on Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedia [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia already has a stub] that does the reverse. This would make it possible to switch back and forth if both paralell entries have these stubs. (I don't represent uncyclopedia, I just thought it would be a good idea) What do you think? [[User:Nerd42|Nerd42]] 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:That's not really a stub thing - what you need is just a standard template that can be used for ''any'' article, stub or otherwise. I suspect, actually, that you may be confusing what a [[WP:STUB|stub]] is with what a [[Wikipedia:Templates|template]] is. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
==Erroneous stub type==
I found the [[template:Strategy-cvg-stub]] which attempts to add to [[:category:puzzle game stubs]]. Apparently the termplate has been used but the category doesn't exist. It should be cleaned up though I don't know in which manner. [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 02:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:It looks like someone decided to include puzzle games in that template, and then someone else changed the category and wording to only puzzle stubs. I've changed to back to {{cl|Strategy game stubs}} and listed both types in the wording. Now all the articles in {{cl|puzzle game stubs}} just need null edits, so the categories will show them correctly. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what's going on with this one, but the category looks very strange. It needs a serious fix-up! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This is complete madness! This template leads into a category called {{cl|Computer and video game templates}}! This means that all CVG stubs - along with all full articles which use other CVG templates - will get dumped into this category with the templates. Sheer and utter insanity. What's more, the category has some very interesting and previously unreported stub templates: {{tl|Capcom-stub}}. {{tl|Sega-stub}}. What is going on here? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:The template was created properly by {{user|ADeveria}}, as a result of the discussion on computer and video game stubs below. His template fed into {{cl|Strategy game stubs}}. {{user|CyberSkull}} erroneously edited the category to {{cl|Computer and video game stubs}} (presumably as a result of copy-pasting from {{tl|cvg-stub}}), which he immediately fixed. But a month later, Cyberskull made it a puzzle-game only stub, removed every reference to strategy games from the title and replaced {{cl|Strategy game stubs}} with {{cl|Puzzle game stubs}} and {{cl|Computer and video game templates}}. Judging from CyberSkull's contributions, this doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere. I performed a null edit on [[Itadaki Street]], and it didn't screw up anything in the categorization. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:{{tl|Capcom-stub}} and {{tl|Sega-stub}} (and others) are mentioned at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#Video game company stubs]]. You'd also commented in the discussion about them there ;) I wouldn't mind seeing some of those deleted... --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::Sigh. With so many different stubs being discussed here, is it any wonder I forget a few? <:) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
==Other stub-related discussions==
===Computer and video game stubs=== (now created as see below)
There's a '''cvg-stub''' currently used by over 2000 articles (way over the recommended 800 limit), which needs to be split up some. Here's a few suggestions of mine:
* Stub category for game-''only''/game series pages. This would differentiate them from the game character/developer/other related CVG pages.
:* Perhaps these should then be split up too, I'm thinking per decade, 80's games, 90's games, 00's games
* Stub category for game-''related'' articles only. This would include characters, mods, game developers, publishers, etc.
I've noticed a "Nintendo" stub too, which may work as an alternative, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about it...the reason I'm thinking a decade split would be best is because it's the least overlapping system (compared to say, by console). --[[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
*Personally, I like by game console/developer. So a Nintendo, Sega, X-box, PS stubs, PC game stubs. There would be overlapping, but its a start. Or major series could have their own stub. I know there is the {{tl|Final Fantasy-stub}} from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy]] project, and i believe theirs similar pokemon stubs. --[[User:ZeWrestler|<span style="color:green">ZeWrestler</span>]] [[user talk:ZeWrestler|<sup><span style="color:green">Talk</span></sup>]] 13:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
My problem with the "by system" method is that a lot of games would end up having a bunch of stub tags (say PS2, Xbox, PC) which would seem to me rather cluttered (can you imagine the ''[[Lemmings (computer game)#Ports|Lemmings]]'' article, if it were a stub?). Admittedly, it would be more helpful for those seeking only to work on articles for these systems. I'm not sure which of these two factors is more important. Series works fine, but does not significantly reduce total amount of CVG stubs. --[[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
* Comment: wouldn't it be easier to use something like, e.g. {{tl|fantasy-cvg-stub}}, {{tl|simulation-cvg-stub}} or {{tl|Egoshooter-cvg-stub}} to forego the problems with the systems? Btw, I see a problem with the decades-system: who really knows ad hoc when a certain game came out, and so: how would people know where to look, when they search for a specific game? [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's another alternative I forgot to mention...there might still be a few games that fall into more than one genre, but generally that system should work...
In defense the decades, I would say that for at least 99% of all games you can find the year released online, Nintendo has lists on its site for all its games for all its systems on its site, with release dates...and I don't believe people are likely to look for games by the stub categories as much as they would the regular categories. --[[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:When I am applying stub templates to articles, I want the contents of the article to tell me what type to use. I don't want to have to go off and research it. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I guess Lectonar's suggestion is probably the best then, although unfortunately some CVG stubs may also require research on what genre to pick for it. --[[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, ADeveria might not be very happy with me: I moved many stubs about game developers from corp-stub to cvg-stub. So I propose a new category: cvg-corp-stub, for the game developers. And because I created a large part of the mess, I volunteer to clear it up and fill the new category. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 10:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
:Hey, that's alright, go with whatever's appropriate. :) I'm all for a cvg-corp-stub, sounds great. I'll help out with that if I find the time to. [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 12:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
:cvg-corp-stub would be a good addition. Also perhaps ones for characters. cvg-char-stub or something. I think these two would be a great start at the very least. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 16:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
::Note cvg chars can already be put in {{tl|fict-char-stub}}. If we create cvg-char-stub it should probably feed into that. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
:Okay, to get things moving a little further here, I propose the following stubs:
:*{{tl|cvg-corp-stub}} (also under corp-stub)
:*<s>{{tl|cvg-char-stub}}</s> (also under fict-char-stub)
:*{{tl|simulation-cvg-stub}}
:*{{tl|platform-cvg-stub}}
:*<s>{{tl|rpg-cvg-stub}}</s> (there appears to be discussion on this above already)
:*{{tl|sports-cvg-stub}}
:*{{tl|shooter-cvg-stub}}
:*{{tl|strategy-cvg-stub}}
:*<s>{{tl|racing-cvg-stub}}</s>
:*{{tl|adventure-cvg-stub}}
:I've tried to make the genre stubs as encompassing as possible, so shooter can be for 3rd person shooters as well as scrolling shooters, etc. I think "fantasy" might be a bit too vague for games, so I didn't add that. Please edit this list at will, however. [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
::Couldn't racing cvg stubs simply be covered by sport-cvg-stub? Or would the category be too big and unwieldy? (I'v also edited down your list by one - you had platforrm-cvg-stub there twice!) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 05:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::: I agree with [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]: the sport-cvg-stub is enough for now; let's just have a look at how it evolves; and I would (for the moment) refrain from the cvg-char-stub, becuase of the redundancies created with the fict-char-stub (see also my comments above: in sjort, many characters from games are also characters in books...) [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 07:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, you're right, racing should be in sports (and thank you for removing the duplicate platform!). My argument for the cvg-char-stub would be that these specific stubs would help out those only interested in improving this particular type of fictional characters. But I can understand your point too, so I've removed it for now. There are two other genres I'm wondering if we should add, {{tl|puzzle-cvg-stub}} and {{tl|fighting-cvg-stub}}. Puzzle ''could'' be put under strategy perhaps, while fighting ''might'' be considered a sport... [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 12:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:: How many puzzle-cvg-stubs would there be ? (and I agree, fighting should, for the moment, go into sport-cvg-stub)...and I've come up with another one, hehe (being already a little older): adventure-cvg-stub (for the likes of Baphomets Curse or Monkey Island type games); but I really couldn't say if that genre is still going strong, being just the owner of an X-Box [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 12:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'm not sure how many puzzle game stubs there are, so never mind that...I like the adventure game idea though, and not only because I'm a fan of those games myself...I believe it would also be good for "Action Adventure" games like Zelda, and any other modern 3D game that's not quite a shooter nor a platformer. Also, it could apply for ye olde text-based games too. [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 13:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:: Dost thou mean ye mighty olde infocom-dainties [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:Well, not specifically, but probably, yeah. I know there's plenty of them made, and thus plenty of stubs will be made...[[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 22:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorting this stub category out will definitely be a hell of a lot of work: there are currently 2,423 articles in the category... [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 18:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
:Assuming there are no objections to the list of stubs mentioned above, and general approval continues, let's begin creating them starting '''Wednesday, August 24''' (the required one week after suggestion). I've never made a stub or any other kind of template before, so help would be appreciated. :) [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 13:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::I've created about a dozen stub templates now, and about the same amount of "other" templates so I'm more than willing to help out with this "project". I'm not a gamer, so I'll focus on the sorting out the cvg-corp-stubs, but as I said, if you need help with the templates, I'm willing to help. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:I decided to remove the {{tl|rpg-cvg-stub}} from the list for now, as I get the feeling that these games could be thrown in with the {{tl|adventure-cvg-stub}} too. If this category would get too big, we could add the rpg-cvg-stub. [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 22:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
By and large this looks like a pretty decent split. I'd argue though, as per my earlier suggestion, that {{tl|online-game-stub}} would also be a sensible addition (being more a 'mode of play' than a genre, and not suffering especially from the 'stub escalation' problem). At least as regards "mmorgs" where 'onlineness' is an inherent part of game-play, as opposed to a CVG with an online mode/add-on. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:All the genre stubs have now been created, so anyone willing to can start adding to them. No images on the templates yet, however. If no one else beats me to it, I'll add the {{tl|cvg-corp-stub}} shortly, too. And I personally have no problem with {{tl|online-game-stub}}, your reasoning sounds good to me. [[User:ADeveria|ADeveria]] 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::I beat you to it ;) [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:If {{tl|online-game-stub}} is clearly restricted to games that are primarily/entirely online (MMORGs, MUDs, etc), I think it sounds like a good idea. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 18:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::That was exactly my conception. Perhaps slightly more specifically still, online computer role-playing games, if that fits the main category scheme a little more closely, and the stub numbers would suit that. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Alright. If it's going to be online role-playing games, perhaps call it online-rpg-stub? While it wouldn't quite match the main category system (which splits off MMORGs and MUD/MUCK/MU*s as seperate categories, without a general "online role-playing game" category), I'd be fine with a online role-playing game stub. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 00:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been around here for a long time. Anyway, why don't you consider moving the game developers and designers to some kind of cvg bio stub? --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 08:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
: Nice idea; that would also cover the {{tl|Video game music composer-stub}} up for deletion, with no real consensu so far...[[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 09:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
===Alternate stub criterion===
I have proposed text, at [[Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposed "depth of coverage" standard]] to try to captue in words the notion thaqt what a stub is cannot be solely defined by a mere mechanical counting of words, sentances, or paragraphs. Please visit and comment. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
===Australian cities===
[[User:Mairi]] mentioned problems with Melbourne stub categories at [[WP:WSS/D]], and its something shared by all the Aussie cities. Currently there are a slew of incorrectly named templates and several which could do with combining for the sake of economy. Unfortunately (or fortunately), they also have WikiProjects of their own, so any changes will need to be coordinated with them. Currently, we have the following:
*{{tl|Adelaide transport stub}} - 26 articles
*{{tl|Adelstub}} - 29 articles
*{{tl|adelaide suburb stub}} - 31 articles
*{{tl|Canberra-stub}} - 62 articles
*{{tl|Canberra suburb stub}} - 109 articles
*{{tl|melstub}} - 502 articles
*{{tl|mel-suburb-stub}} - 11 articles
*{{tl|Hobstub}} - unused
*{{tl|Sydney suburb stub}} - 331 articles
no stubs for Perth or Brisbane
What I would propose - subject to comments from the various WikiProjects - is the following revamp:
*combining Adelaide�s three stub types into {{tl|Adelaide-stub}} - there is no need for three categoiries this small when a combined stub would contain less than 100 stubs. It would also be far easier for WikiProject members to work on one category than have three separate ones.
*Keeping {{tl|canberra-stub}}, but renaming {{tl|canberra suburb stub}} as {{tl|Canberra-geo-stub}} and allowing it to cover the entirety of A.C.T. (there are a handful of non-suburb geo-stubs from ACT)
*Renaming {{tl|Melstub}} and {{tl|Mel-suburb-stub}} as {{tl|Melbourne-stub}} and {{tl|Melbourne-geo-stub}} - also going through Melstub�s category and moving all the suburbs to the other category! There are over 100 of them in there!
*Renaming {{tl|Sydney suburb stub}} to {{tl|Sydney-geo-stub}}.
*Hobstub has never been used, and google suggests that there are probably only 20 or 30 stubs relating to Hobart in total. it is currently listed for deletion at [[WP:SFD]]. if it looks like it will be useful at some stage it can be recreated then (with a better name) - Perth-stub, Brisbane-stub and a separate Sydney-stub may also be viable at some stage (if requested here).
*A separate Australia-struct-stub - as proposed further up the page - looks incresingly viable.
[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:Nice catch, Grutness - these could certainly do with standardising. I agree on all counts except for deleting the Hobart category, as it's sure to grow, and I don't see the point of leaving it without a stub category. However, renaming it to something more standard would help, too. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:I agree mostly. I'm fine with retiring {{tl|adelstub}} and {{tl|adelaide transport stub}} into an {{tl|adelaide-stub}}, but I would like {{tl|adelaide suburb stub}} retained, even if it means being renamed {{tl|adelaide-geo-stub}}. It is only underpopulated because there hasn't yet been a concerted effort at creating suburb stubs, as with the other cities, but this is bound to happen at one point or another.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|Cyberjunkie]] | [[User_talk:Cyberjunkie|Talk]] 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:Coming from a Canberra perspective I agree and think standardising these stub types accross Australia would be useful. I also don't think we should be removing the Hobart stub just because it isn't in use yet. [[User:Martyman|Martyman]] 03:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:Happy with the Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra changes. Keeping some form of Hobart stub seems good so as to have a sensible naming scheme already in place. -- All the best, [[User:Nickj|Nickj]] [[User talk:Nickj|(t)]] 04:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:I'm happy to go through all the Hobart stubs and tag them with whichever stub name is officially decided - {{tl|Hobart-stub}}, by the looks of things? -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 04:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
:Agree with Grutness throughout. Since it looks like there'll be a lack of consensus to delete the allegedly highly useful hobstub, can I suggest that failing this it be urgently: renamed; given a well-formed category; and actually populated with something like a number of stubs rising to a "viable even given the existence of a WikiProject" level? Having such categories around just in case they'll be useful one day pretty much runs a coach and four through the whole point of keeping stub categories reasonably organised, and more to the point, useful for attracting a critical mass of collectively interested editors. (Oops, forgot to "save" this after leaving browser window open -- thanks Chuq, I think that'd be a plan alright.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Would Hobart be better served by a {{tl|Tasmania-stub}} category, and would any of the other cities be served by state-based categories? [[User:Susvolans|Susvolans]] [[User talk:Susvolans|?]] 12:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
::Maybe, although the wikiproject is specifically for Hobart. Note too that a Tasmania-geo-stub is quite likely to be created sometime soon - there are over 120 Tasmania-geo-stubs, but the Australia-geo-stub category is currently only at around 300 stubs after the recent removal of those for the four largest states (in terms of stub numbers). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay... this has been quiet for a few days, so I'll start moving them one or two at a time to SFD for official renaming. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
:I am happy with Canberra stub changes--[[User:AYArktos|User:AYArktos]] | [[User_talk:AYArktos| Talk]] 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
::Feel free to add support or otherwise at [[WP:SFD]]. Hopefully after all the discussion here there shouldn't be any major opposition to the changes. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay - the Hobart, Canberra and Adelaide changes have gone ahead. I'll take the others to SFD now. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 07:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
===*B and *G codes===
I'd like to propose adding *B and *G codes to the list to indicate that there ate biography and geography stubs associated with a particular stub type. This would cut down on the number of additional lines needed to indicate child stub types, especially the *B code which would be useful for things besides regions: For example:
'''Current'''
**'''[[:Category:American football stubs|American football stubs]]''' ({{tl|Amfootball-stub}}, <400 as at August 26)
***<small>Child: {{tl|Amfootbio-stub}} below under {{tl|Sportbio-stub}}</small>
'''Proposed'''
**'''[[:Category:American football stubs|American football stubs]]''' ([[:Category:American football biography stubs|*B]] | {{tl|Amfootball-stub}}, <400 as at August 26)
So what do you think? [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
*Sounds like a good way to shorten the page - *H could be used for history subcats, too. I'm a little worried that all the abbreviations might put off casual stub sorters, but other than that it sounds like a good scheme. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 11:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
**We don't have all that many history stub types at the moment. The bio's and geo's are fairly common tho. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 15:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
***What about *C (culture), *S (Structure) and *E (Economy)? [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 19:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
****Well, there are no specific culture stubs, and no specific econ ones listed on [[WP:WSS/ST]] either. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
*****Off the top of my head, I recall {{tl|india-eco-stub}}/[[:Category:Economy of India stubs]]. It doesn't seem to be listed on WP:WSS/ST or [[:Category:Stub categories]] though. I'll fix that right away. [[User:Aecis|Aecis]] 08:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
******It's listed at [[WP:WSS/D]], where it's mentioned that it could use a rename... --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 20:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
*I've been bold and added *B to the list of codes. Later today I'll go thru and add it to listings that have associated bio-stubs, but don't give any mention of that... --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 21:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Split sportbio-stub? ===
Recently I've been writing biographies on sport shooters, some of which have been stubs, and I've marked them with sportbio-stub. However, I see that they completely drowned in [[:Category:Sportspeople stubs]], where A alone takes up an entire page. I'm pretty confident that nobody would argue against the need for some kind of split here, so the question is how. Should every subcategory in [[:Category:Sportspeople by sport]] have its own stub type (which will ensure that sport writers who are experts in a single sport or two will find them, but might result in some very sparsely populated stub types), or should we try to find the most commonly bio-stubbed sports and separate them until the main stub type is not unwieldly anymore (which will probably mean much more work and that ''most'' sports will get their own stub types anyway)? -- [[User:Jao|Jao]] 12:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:I would lean toward splitting out the sports that have bunches of stubs in order to reduce the number in the catch-all stub category. With that being said, if there's a need for a sport shooter bio stub today that would help you, then propose it. (You might want to also consider creating a Wikiproject for sport shooters, if it doesn't already exist.) — [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 12:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
::ISTR there was a bit of a discussion over at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting]] recently as to what would be a good topic to knock into shape now that the bio-stubs are under control... this would be a good possibility for that. There are probably quite a few sports that could do with separate stubs (not ''all'' of them, just - as F-o-P said - those with large numbers of stubs). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 13:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Very well. I did some simple Google searches (site:en.wikipedia.org "This biographical article relating to sports is a stub." "Alpine skiers" etc.). This catches redirects as well, and is not up-to-date, but it should give a fairly good estimate of which categories have most stubs:
# Athletes (313)
# Badminton players (96)
# Boxers (67)
# Triathletes (66)
# Figure skaters (58)
# Archers (35)
# Gymnasts (35)
# Swimmers (33)
# Tennis players (30)
# Bodybuilders (15)
# Rowers (15)
# Alpine skiers (14)
# Cyclists (14)
# Speed skaters (13)
# Canoers (12)
# Judoka (12)
The rest have 8 or less. There are also some that should be sorted into existing stub types, but that has little to do with this discussion. Now, besides Athletes, the numbers are not very high -- it's just that the total number is. And so, to answer the question, yes, I ''would'' be helped by a sport shooter stub type, but not because there are so many ''sport shooter stubs'' -- just because there are so many unsorted sportspeople stubs.. If all the above were sorted out, we would have about a hundred sportbio-stubs left. -- [[User:Jao|Jao]] 08:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:I think splitting off {{tl|boxingbio-stub}}, {{tl|badmintonbio-stub}}, {{tl|skatingbio-stub}} (the latter for both speed and figure skating) would be very useful. Obviously {{tl|athlete-stub}} looks like it would as well, but... which definition of "athlete" does this use? If it's the standard Commonwealth English definition, that's fine (i.e., what Americans call track and field athletes), but many of the articles you've counted may use the American definition, which covers a wide variety of sports. Personally, I'd suggest an {{tl|athlete-stub}} (currently one exists as a redirect) as well (which could probably accommodate the triathletes as well), but I wouldn't expect it to get to 313 articles. As to the numbers for the other sports disciplines, many of the sportspeople are probably listed in the categories for their specific sports (tennis players in {{cl|tennis stubs}}, for instance), which would boos numbers. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::Come to think of it, I'll officially propose these three further up the page in the October proposals section. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
===Stub format===
Right now we have a number of stub templates that atart off with <nowiki><div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub"></nowiki>. There's one small problem with that: now that we have endorsed the usage of more than one stub in an article, this contributes to a small potential problem in that there aren't supposed to be in HTML, SGML, XML, or practiaclly any other ML you care to name, more than one element with the same "id" attribute. While most browsers don't bother to enforce that rule, or do so in ways that wouldn't affect how the id is being used, there are a few other minor issues that theoretically could arise but are unlikely to due to the nature of stub articles. Still, there is a simple fix that could be applied, and it would have the added minor benefit of cutting the article size by 5 chars per stub in the article. That would be to shift to <nowiki><div class="boilerplate metadata stub"></nowiki> and make stub a class instead of an identifier. This would require making the appropriate changes to the main CSS files, so it may not be trivial to do depending on how the existing CSS is set up. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 01:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
<!--add new discussion ABOVE this line -->
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="Discussion Note" style="{{divstyleamber}}">This section is for general discussion or proposals relating to stub types and stub sorting. Proposals for specific stub types should go in the [[#Proposals, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|current month's section]].</div >
[[Category:WikiProject Stub sorting|Proposals]]
[[de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Stubs nach Themen/Anträge und Entscheidungen]]
| 