Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/June 2007: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:01, 18 July 2007

Revision as of 20:20, 30 July 2007

Line 592:

****I created {{tl|Vojvodina-stub}}; should I hold off on {{tl|Vojvodina-geo-stub}} or would that not be viable yet? [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*****There's plenty for Vojvodina-geo- -- over 400, so probably won't be long before we're re-splitting them, come to that. But I've no idea about the "generals", though it sounds plausible if it also had the geos and a child. (I certainly wouldn't want to end up double-tagging that geos with Serbia-geo-stub and Vojvodina; that'd be really painful.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|Argentina geography stubs}} subtypes===

{{sfp create}}

*{{cl|Buenos Aires Province geography stubs}} 216

*{{cl|Santa Fe Province geography stubs}} 64

Parent also north of 700. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|Asian academic biography stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

Oversized parent, this would help somewhat. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support''' also suggest that templates for Japan and possibly china may be useful. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

**I was planning ''only'' upmerged per-country templates. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*** I agree to a point but are you suggesting creating a template for each asian country, I would suggest that they would be useful for the larger/better covered countries but for the small poorly covered countries it may be better to have an asia template, are we really going to need a burma-academic or yeman-academic templates for 1 or 2 people as an example. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 07:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

****I agree that it gets to be diminishing returns after a certain point. Though other than the effort of creating them, I don't think there's much of a downside. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===More geology subtypes===

{{sfp create}}

*{{cl|Geologic formation stubs}} 57

*{{cl|Petrology stubs}} 56

I held off on these earlier since I wasn't quite clear how they might overlap with the first three, but evidently there's at least the above numbers remaining, by direct categorisation alone. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|cereal disease stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

This looks to be be viable, and will help somewhat with the (rather vast) plant disease stubs. Much as I'd like to propose numerous other such subcats, the trouble is that for most of these articles, there's no information at all as to what it is they infect -- not by category, not in an infobox, not in the text. Until such time as a subject-knowledgeable editor adds such... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|Ascomycetes stubs}} subcats===

{{sfp create}}

You wouldn't think it now, but this'll be oversized by the time {{cl|fungus stubs}} is re-sorted it will be; so better, I think, to create subcats now. In the first instance, I suggest by class, though even some of those will be pretty large, so into orders wouldn't be out of order, either. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Electronic albums: good news, bad news===

{{sfp top|create by genre}}

On the plus side, I've just sorted {{cl|electronic album stubs}} down from over 800, to 50 (including to a new 80s cat, which I speedied on the basis of the existing 90s and 00s). On the minus, {{cl|2000s electronic album stubs}} is now itself spilling onto a fifth page -- d'oh. It looks like {{cl|2000s DJ mix album stubs}} would be clearly viable at over 100. After that, Techno, Indietronica, House, Trip hop, Trance and Ambient all look in the just-about-viable range. There's also the inevitable overlap with hip hop, dance, rock (indie and otherwise), and experimental, so there's also the option of "2000s electronic <other descriptor> album stubs", but that seems a little too ad hoc without corresponding permcats. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't suppose splitting by country of origin would help - UK-2000... US-2000... Euro-2000... Japan-2000...? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::Albums don't seem to generally be categorised on that basis, and I'm a bit skeptical about whether it'd be of much use (though some markets do seem to be more distinct than others, it must be said). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Mmmm. And I suppose there's also be the possiible confusion of Euro-2000-techno with a stub for Eurodisco music. Sigh. Any other possibilities? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::There's been some support over at the WPJ for some-or-other sub-genre sub-cats, plus talk of tag-vetting and possible merging. I'll see if I can find the least-worst option as far as sub-genre overlap is concern. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{tl|France-reli-struct-stub}}===

{{sfp top|create France-church-stub}}

{{tl|France-struct-stub}} contains 253 articles, of which 144+ would fit into the proposed. [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:Would it be easier to simply remove the churches with a France-church-stub? Chances are most of the reli-structs would be churches. Mind you, 253 isn't really a high priority split (600+ would be). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

::France-reli-struct-stub seems more effective because it also covers the religious houses properly (16 at the moment but due to rise, as I am planning some additions), whereas they don't fit accurately under France-church-stub - which would not stop people trying to add it anyway. So a France-reli-struct-stub would avoid some future mess. Sorry if I have asked for it too early - I happened to be doing stuff in that area and it struck me as useful.[[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Don't mind about the "too early" aspect: I didn't give G. a hard time about wanting to split the Portuguese geos before they became "officially" oversized, after all. :) I'd tend to agree about the church-stub, though: wouldn't that help more with existing double-stubbing, and be a bit more focussed? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::That's a ''bit'' unfair... Portugal has about 700 geo-stubs excluding the one subtype already split out, so it is officially oversized. And splitting out the other six regions would give an average of 115 stubs per region. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::<800 in any one category isn't oversized, for the (admittedly arbitrary) definition that's in use at /T (and if there's some other definition, no-one's ever made it clear to me). And my point is that you're conflating "viability" with "priority" (and some more, immediately above). It might be a reason to wonder "why are you bothering?", but not to oppose on those grounds alone. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Strange - I've always used<600, and I was pretty sure that was the standard definition used here, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned Portugal in the first place. And it's not really a conflation, just an added extra reason for splitting. Given an (assumed) overpopulation, it would have priority. And given that it could be split into categories of 100+, it would have viability. So it would have had both priority and viability, whereas the French structure one would only have viability but not priority. But we're digressing from the point of this discussion... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::We digressed some time ago, but I think we're largely agreeing past each other, give or take. I do hope we don't decide it is/was/should be 600 for the foreseeable future, since that'd be another two ''hundred'' categories on the "to-do" list at a stroke. (Always assuming anyone is paying any attention to that in the first place, of course, about which I'm now seriously wondering.) ::::::One might well argue that anything over a listing page is to some extent sub-optimal, and everything's a sliding scale thereafter. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Church-stub is great for churches, but not for monasteries - which are reli-structs but not churches. It is true that there aren't great numbers of monastery stub articles involved at the moment, but I am hoping to add a quantity soon, to which reli-struct could also apply - otherwise they still have to be double-stubbed. However, to be fair, the great majority of the existing articles are cathedrals, and the church-stub would be v useful for those. [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::But is it necessary to "get" those in the same stub type? Making the scope wider potentially dilutes the (alleged) benefit of getting more specialist editors on the case. Now, if there's a Wikiproject Religious Buildings out there... And as I say, you have the double-stubbing issue either way, and double-stubbing with church-stub and France-reli-struct-stub looks the more tortuous to me. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::(Sorry - my attention wandered slightly when you started discussing stats...) No, that wasn't what I meant. I am suggesting one stub only - "France-reli-struct-stub" - that can apply to churches, monasteries and any other kind of religious building. This wd have the effect of dividing the French building stubs into two parts, religious and secular, which is a useful split (even if, as appears from the above, a bit premature). This looks better to me because there can be no arguments about whether or not it fits, whereas with a church-stub there are always some who insist on trying to slap it onto monasteries and other non-church religious buildings as well. (My other point, whihc seems to have caused some misunderstanding, was simply that if we end up with a church-stub instead, which you seem to favour, well, there are a lot of churches, so it will not be wasted - but it won't be as useful). [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::That's what I thought you meant, I'm just not entirely convinced of the merits. Firstly, it'll mean that all the actual French churches will, strictly speaking, have to be double-stubbed (with {{tl|France-reli-struct-stub}} and with ''{{tl|church-stub}}''). Secondly, it assumes that there's a significant group of editors that work on "all religious buildings" (and/or, "all secular buildings"), whereas my intution would be that that's unreasonably broad. (And as a minor third consideration, it think it's less likely that the average stub-sorter would think of there being a France-reli-struct- if they happen across a French church article.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Oh, OK - thanks for explaining it a bit more. (As a matter of fact I DO think and edit in terms of religious and secular buildings as groups, but I got used long ago on Wikipedia to being a minority of one). I'm happy to settle for France-church-stub. [[User:HeartofaDog|HeartofaDog]] 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I won't claim to have done a survey, so you could have told me the opposite, and I'd have been none the wiser. :) Perhaps create a category for the churches, and a double-upmerged stub template for the "misc. religious", until they're large enough for a parent? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|Conservative MP (UK) stubs}} by DoB===

{{sfp top|created as revised}}

Now actually oversized; I'm guessing we probably want to split by decade (or century) of birth, per several other such cases. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

*I support the proposal but wonder as we already have stub categories for England and Scotland politicians would it be an idea to split this along those lines first i.e Scotland-conservative-MP-stub and its English equivalent. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 07:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:*I'm not sure about splitting by date of birth, because it leads to some rather arbitrary divides, but if it is to be done I suggest that it would be better to split by century of birth rather than by decade (can anyone come up with any figures on how that divide would look?).<br />I think that a split by nation would in some ways be simpler, but note that splitting out the Scottish Conservative MPs is more complicated than it sounds, because the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] was not actually active in Scotland from 1912–1965, when it merged with its ally, the [[Unionist Party (Scotland)]]. The starting point should really be to recategorise into [[:Category:Scottish Unionist Party MPs]] the hundreds of pre-1965 Scottish MPs who are currently miscatgorised in [[:Category:Conservative MPs (UK)]], and then apply to them a new {{tl|Scottish-Unionist-MP-stub}} ... but please read [[Unionist Party (Scotland)]] to see the complcated history involved, particularly with reagrd to the flexibility and fuzziness of party labels in that period and the fact that some Unionist Party candidates described themselves Liberal Unionists even after 1912.<br />I suggest that it would be simplest to start by splitting out the stub articles on English Conservative MPs, using the intersect between [[:Category:Conservative MPs (UK)]] and [[:Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies]]. I don't think that a bot-driven relabelling of Scottish Conservatives is workable; a manual approach would be needed to avoid inaccuracies.<br />In all of this, it's important to note that the more we subdivide the MP stubs, the more we create overlaps, because many MPs repesented both Scottish and English constitiuencies in the course of their careers, and changes of party allegiance used to be much more frequent than they are today. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::*Which is a singular advantage of splitting by DoB, since whatever doubts one might have about the proverbial legitimacy of MPs, I'm fairly sure they were all only born once. I'm not opposed to splitting by home nation, though I suspect giving the Unionists their own cat would be overkill for likely utility for distinct populations of "consuming" editors. (I'm fully prepared for the Scottish Unionist Task Force to show up and prove me wrong.) I think better would be a {{cl|Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs}}, scoped to include the separate tory and unionist parties, as well as the 'merged' party of that name, which one can explain at (moderate) length on the category page. (Separate upmerged templates would be fine.) We're likely to be back relatively soon to re-split the English, though, if that's all we do at this point, but a little progress is still progress.

::*The DoB-based numbers are roughly: 19thC, ~250, 20thC, 500+. (So again, just going by century is a recipe for repeat business.) Each decade between the 1890s and the 1940s is over threshold as a separate cat. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*Suggestion: it would be a good idea to create a stub type for [[:Category:Tory MPs (pre 1834)]]. Possibly under-populated at the moment, because many of the MPs are miscategorised as Conservatives, but since it goes back into 18th century, it shoukd fill up rapidly as things are properly categorised. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

**Doesn't seem at all like a good idea to me, I'm afraid, both on likely size, and of the principle of the scope. If the parent under discussion is anything to go by, it would be ''very'' under-populated (I'm assuming you're ''not'' proposing to lump the GB parliamentarians back in); and it's Yet Another Axis of Split, not even being congruent with the "other" time based ones. BTW, if you create any more stub categories, can you at least ensure they end in "stubs"? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*The Scots Tories come up somewhat short, but I went ahead and created that anyway. (There may be undercategorisation, leading me to me missing some.) Wales is pretty small, and NI obviously nonexistent, so we'll be back dealing with the large English "rump" before too long. (It seems so large that populating a {{tl|Conservative-England-MP-stub}} before we've finalised how to re-split would be a little pointless.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

*I'm afraid that was a bad idea, Alai, particularly the bot-driven population of the category. This has led to the likes of [[Henry Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 1st Baron Montagu of Beaulieu|Henry Douglas-Scott-Montagu]] and [[William Murray, 4th Earl of Mansfield and Mansfield|William Murray]] being labelled as "[[Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party|Scottish Conservative and Unionist]]" MPs, even though they both died 60 years before the foundation of the [[Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party]]. Did you see my comment above about the limitations of the category? "Consevative" as a label applied to Scottish MPs may means one of three different parties. Please could you undo the bot-driven tagging? I know that you meant well, but it has unfortunately added false information to too many articles; and the stub name is too vague for it to be reliably used pecisely. Overpopulation of a stub category is not a good reason for creating sub-categories which are so ambiguous as to lead to even their creator misapplying them. <s>{{tl|Scottish-Unionist-MP-stub}}</s> {{tl|Scottish-Conservative-MP-stub}} should be either renamed or deleted. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Typo corrected in above commentL I meant to say that {{tl|Conservative-Scotland-MP-stub-MP-stub}} should be either renamed or deleted, but that it might be useful to create a {{tl|Scottish-Unionist-MP-stub}} and populate it properly. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

*I have had no reply to this for over a week, so I have made a compromise edit: I have changed both [{{tl|Conservative-Scotland-MP-stub}} and {{cl|Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs}} to include both the [[Unionist Party (Scotland)]] and the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]]. That allows the category to include Conservative and/or Unionist MPs since the [[Unionist Party (Scotland)]] was founded in 1912, but not those from before. Still not ideal, because it omits a century of Scottish Conservative MPs, but at least it's a bit better than before. -[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Split of {{tl|Portugal-geo-stub}}===

{{sfp top|create upmerged templates as revised}}

There are now very close to 700 portugal geo-stubs, even excluding those for the Azores, which have long been split out. Portugal seems to have two different systems for dividing itself administratively, [[Subdivisions_of_Portugal#Districts|18 districts]], plus Madeira and the Azores or [[Subdivisions_of_Portugal#NUTS_II_and_III:_regions_and_subregions|7 regions]] (including those two), which seem to parallel England's ceremonial an administrative counties to some extent, if I read things correctly. <s>Given that the regions seem to be coming into more prominence, and there is a likelihood of most if not all of them reaching threshold, I'd suggest templates (at least) for the other six:

*{{tl|Madeira-geo-stub}}

*{{tl|Algarve-geo-stub}}

*{{tl|Alentejo-geo-stub}}

*{{tl|Lisboa-geo-stub}}

*{{tl|CentroPT-geo-stub}}

*{{tl|NortePT-geo-stub}}</s> see below

If someone prefers the districts to the regions, then that's just as good, but 700/20 doesn't really guarantee categories. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:'''Update''' - I've left a note at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portuguese geography]] about this. Hopefully someone there will be able to advise us about regions vs districts. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::Further update - what little comment there has been there suggests that districts would be better that regions, even though that would mean less categories. The regions seem like a new concent that is still having its rough edges smoothed off. {{tl|Madeira-geo-stub}} is still a reasonable split by itself, leaving 18 other templates, probably mostly upmerged:

::*{{tl|Lisboa-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Lisbon-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Leiria-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Santarem-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Santarém-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Setubal-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Setúbal-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Beja-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Faro-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Evora-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Évora-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Portalegre-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|CasteloBranco-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Guarda-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Coimbra-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Aveiro-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Viseu-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Braganca-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Bragança-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|VilaReal-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|Porto-geo-stub}} (w/redirect at {{Oporto-geo-stub}} or vice versa)

::*{{tl|Braga-geo-stub}}

::*{{tl|VianadoCastelo-geo-stub}} (or {{tl|VianaDoCastelo-geo-stub}})

::[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Good plan on the redirects. :) It'd be an option to upmerge to ''regional'' categories for a number of these, right? (I realize this goes seriously wonky in a couple of cases, like Santarém, which we'd have to leave feeding into the parent.) It's neither fish nor foul, but... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::Possibly, but the borders don't seem to match up very well, unfortunately. Let's see whether any get to 60 by themselves first - we can always change the pointing on the templates afterwards. As for the redirects, yeah,w ell, otherwise we'd have the usual arguments :). BTW, before making these it'll be worthwhile checking that these names are unique and that we don't run into a region of Brazil called Vila Real or similar problem. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 09:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't go so far as to say they match up ''well'', but they seem to do so enough for at least some upmerging, and my guess is to the point of numerical viability. But no hurry. On uniqueness, I just generally go by what's camped out on the permcat name first (or article name, if there's no permcat). If that's not been disambiguated, then it may not be necessary (or it may be we have wacky permcats -- it's been known to happen...). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Miscellaneous double-stubbing mashup===

{{sfp top|create all <s>except UK-hospital-stub</s>}}

The following all have double-stubbings of more than 80, where one of the types is in the 600..800 range.

*{{cl|Pittsburgh geography stubs}} 81

*{{cl|New York City geography stubs}} 85

*{{cl|United Kingdom hospital stubs}} 80

*{{cl|American biologist stubs}} 75

*{{cl|Zimbabwean sculptor stubs}} 72

*{{cl|Canadian lacrosse biography stubs}} 68

*{{cl|Hungarian Olympic medalist stubs}} 69

*{{cl|Malaysian building and structure stubs}} 67

*{{cl|Australian poet stubs}} 65

*{{cl|United Kingdom publishing company stubs}} 65

Most of the parentages should be obvious; two that are less so are Hospital_stubs+United_Kingdom_medical_organisation_stubs and Asian_building_and_structure_stubs+Malaysia_geography_stubs (the latter perhaps being food for thought as to what -geo- stubs are actually used for, "on the ground".) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

*Malaysia's been long overdue for its own struct stub template at least, and now a category seems a good move - and like similar struct stubs, its parents should be {{cl|Asian building and structure stubs}} and {{cl|Malaysia stubs}} (not {{cl|Malaysia geography stubs}}, since buildings aren't normally grouped in with geo-stubs). I'd be inclined to put the UK hospitals in {{cl|Hospital stubs}}, {{cl|United Kingdom medical organisation stubs}} ''and'' {{cl|United Kingdom building and structure stubs}}, since the articles are likely to be at least in part about the buildings themselves, much like with theatre stubs and museum stubs. Yes to all the others (72 Zimbabwean sculptor stubs? Whoda thought...?), though I'd ask whether the NYC and Pittsburgh geo-stubs are likely to affect the way the rest of the state-geo-stubs are likely to be split in future... will it make for problems with Penn and NYState later? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

**I forgot the ob. whoda thought?: thanks for correcting that omission. :) I shouldn't have said "parentage", I really meant "constituents of the double-stubbing" (though in most cases they're the same thing). I don't think splitting by city is going to be a problem; elsewhere we've split by county, but then we tend to end up upmerging them to μSAs, MSAs, CSAs, unofficial regions with articles defining their scope, or totally made up ones. Cities of significant size will invariably correspond to (the population centres of) *SAs, so they can just be made a subcat. (Chicago and Chicagoland are already done this way, for example.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|dramatist and playwright stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

I don't have an exact count for this (though I suspect it's close to threshold just from the UK), but surely we should have this given the two existing national D&P stub types. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|legal term stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

At least 90 of them; parent is of course very oversized. Existing subcat {{cl|Latin legal stubs}} (should be "phrases"). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|military decoration stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

This looks viable as a subcat of {{cl|order, decoration, and medal stubs}}, and more to the point will help get rid of a few from {{cl|military stubs}}, which despite some recent shrinkage is still oversized. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|qualification stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

The {{cl|education stubs}} are long-standing oversized, and the corresponding permcats hurt my eyes and brain. But this looks a clear-cut case: 70 of these. I wonder if we shouldn't also consider an {{tl|edu-bio-stub}}; the number don't look tremendous, but it'd also be a parent to existing cats (some of which I can't help but wonder if there's over-sorting to). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support''' both per nom. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|telecommunications term stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

Oversized parent, 54 of these on the basis of catting; shouldn't be hard to find a few more. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|2000s thriller film stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

'00s drama films is oversized, this looks like the most promising possible new subcat... but only 43 are catted that way. Anyone think they can drag up another 17? (I could start with populating an upmerged template if that would help.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

==={{cl|United States opera singer stubs}}===

{{sfp create}}

Seems to be 60-odd of these. The opera singers aren't in urgent need of being split, but the US-singer-stubs are, and this would take care of a handful of them, at least. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}

===Arena Football===

{{sfp top|create Arena Football League stubs (cat) and/or ArenaFootballLeague-bio-stub as needed}}

I don't know if this counts as a proposal but, I would like to propose we do something with {{Tl|ArenaFootballLeague-stub}}. It was nominated for discussion a while back and was kept upmerged to {{Cl|American football stubs}}. Having looked at the what links here for the template and the discussion it appears that it is to be used on players. I propose this is upmerged to {{Cl|American football biography stubs}} or as it has over 30 articles and a wikiproject given its own category. I have to admit not knowing much about this sport so I don't know which would be best. If this needs posting elsewhere let me know and i will move it. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

*Own category is probably the best option. You could also create a separate -bio- template... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sfd bottom}}