Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kurieeto (talk | contribs) at 14:09, 14 November 2005 (→{{tl|canada-abp-stub}}: Thresholds for the creation of an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

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

Proposing new stubs - procedure

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

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

Proposals, July-August 2005

New album stubs

I've moved this from the WP:WSS/ST talk page. --TheParanoidOne 10:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC) - Sorry keep getting confused. - (Erebus555 17:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

{{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? -(Erebus555 09:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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, {{album}}.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{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? –Shoaler (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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? -- Joolz 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about the Ulster Unionists... If it goes ahead, would {{Union-bio-stub}} get around the name problem? Or would that be too ambiguous? Grutness...wha? 13:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Union-bio would get round it yeah :) -- Joolz 17:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to think that the {{Union-bio-stub}} was about people on the Union side in War of Northern Agression. :) Caerwine 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like {{laborunion-bio-stub}}? It's longer, but it's probably less ambiguous. --Mairi 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. - SoM 15:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about having these go into the {{activist-stub}} proposal way down below with an option to split off if there are enough as {{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". Caerwine 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda like this... cuts down on the hyphenation creep. nae'blis (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too, and it avoids all the issues of the other proposed names. --Mairi 06:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - go for it! Grutness...wha? 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{UK-struct-stub}}

This has about 1000 articles. Suggest splitting off some bits of it, but not clear which. Morwen - Talk 12:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London and Scotland would remove two large sections, I think. Grutness...wha? 06:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking geographically but more sort of church-stub etc but London and Scotland would be good idea, yes! Morwen - Talk 09:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few days sorting {{rail-stub}} articles into, among others, {{UK-depot-stub}} which is already a subcategory of both {{UK-struct-stub}} and {{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. 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. Grutness...wha? 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, September 2005

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:

The already proposed Hip-Hop stub will go a long way in the Musicians category as well. Thanks for any feedback. J. Van Meter 12:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this will help the music category. Go for it. -Haon 13:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{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. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- 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.  :-J. Van Meter 01:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 05:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-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 {{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.)
J. Van Meter 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Genre is useful, but so is instrument. Personally I think {{woodwind-musician-stub}}, {{brass-musician-stub}}, {{keyboard-musician-stub}}, and {{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. J. Van Meter 14:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another different but related idea: Both the music and musician stub categories are jammed up with record producers. So, how about {{record-producer-stub}}? J. Van Meter 02:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed many various non-musician but music-related people stubs. Something should be created for them. I'd suggest {{music-bio-stub}}, in the same vein as film-bio-stub and poli-bio-stub, but it still sounds awful. --Joy [shallot] 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four instrument based stubs I suggested, I've just created {{woodwind-musician-stub}} and {{brass-musician-stub}}, while {{keyboard-musician-stub}} is covered by the {{keyboardist-stub}} someone else created, and I decided to create the {{string-musician-stub}} as {{bowed-musician-stub}} so as to exclude the guitarists and such, now I'm off to sort Category:Musician stubs which should take me a while, tho I'll certainly welcome help. Caerwine 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Internet-bio-stub}}

I think we need a category for the many creators of notable websites, blogs, internet software, etc.--Carabinieri 15:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, falls in line with radio-bio-stub which got a pass below. nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Snafflekid 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm - more to the point, Category: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? Grutness...wha? 03:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Snafflekid 04:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

either {{gang-stub}} or {{street-gang-stub}}

I've been finding a bunch of gang-cruft. The {{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. Kasper Gutman 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Silverfish 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Oleg Alexandrov 01:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'jm proposing Applied Mathematics ({{Appliedmath-stub}} or {{Mathapplied-stub}}), and tentatively proposing Category theory ({{Cattheory-stub}}), and Number theory ({{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. Silverfish 09:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Oleg Alexandrov 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Geometry stubs, and just from the names, a lot seem to be polyhedra, in the 3 dimensional sense. I'll propose {{Polyhedron-stub}}, which should remove a lot from the Geometry stubs category. This would cover articles about particular polyhedra. Silverfish 23:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, October 2005

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. --71Demon 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of road stubs, part 2

Per the discussions above I propose:

I suppose that New York and West Virginia could be abbreviated... {{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. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a reasonable idea, but the names need work. IIRC, {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} (or maybe {{NewYork-statehighway-stub}}?) is the usual standard we're trying to keep to. Anyone? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NewYork-State-Highway-Stub works for me... I'm trying to maintain consistency with the other stub templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Mairi 03:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 8 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 {{WestVirginia-road-stub}}. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Please, for a modicum of consistency with other stub templates, use:

Alai 03:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting until the outcome of the SFD to create the templates listed above. Another note: {{Texas Highway Stub}} has been created (not by me). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Automobile stubs

Also, please see 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 {{ford-auto-stub}}, all by GM in the {{gm-auto-stub}} and so on. bjelleklang 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overpopulated category certainly needs to be sorted. Please use hyphens in names (e.g., {{bmw-auto-stub}}). Would {{auto-part-stub}} (Category:Automobile part stubs) and/or {{auto-term-stub}} (Category:Automobile terminology stubs) be useful, too? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. bjelleklang 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{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 {{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.

That gives us five stub types in all which should be enough to provide a first approximation. Caerwine 05:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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? Grutness...wha? 22:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Caerwine 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. bjelleklang 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the automobile article, and suggest that the stubs are sorted in the same manner.
This gives the following:

bjelleklang 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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:

Might be easier to keep track of for some people, tho they are a bit more fudgy with the names than my first idea. Caerwine 22:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have created {{auto-corp-stub}} as it was not at all controvesial or disputed and have begun to populate it. I have run into one complication tho. A number of the early automobile articles are about short-lived companies that produced nly one model and include info about both the comapany and the vehicle that produced it. For now, I'm generally leaving such stubs in {{auto-stub}} unless it's clear that the focus is on the company and not the car. Caerwine 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody have any serious objections to my suggestion (se above, total of 6 subcategories), I'll start sorting wednesday or thursday. Bjelleklang - talk 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason the categories were created as Category:Foo auto stubs (e.g. Category:Brass auto stubs) and not Category:Foo automobile stubs? --Mairi 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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 {{Truck-stub}} under "Transportation" so I added the generic {{stub}} template. It was soon found out (good for you guys) and it was replaced with the {{Van-stub}} which doesn't really fit very well. Anyone feeling creative out there, I think we should have a logo-enhanced {{Truck-stub}} template (a tank truck hauling several thousand gallons of gasoline/petrol ain't a van). Thanks, --hydnjo talk 00:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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...? Grutness...wha? 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{van-stub}}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, {{truck-stub}} and {{lorry-stub}} so as to avoid a difficult international catchall. Or, how about a {{truck/lorry-stub}} or if you prefer a {{lorry/truck-stub}} 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.

--hydnjo talk 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to have some kind of generic {{vehicle-stub}} under Transport, and then {{auto-stub}}, {{van-stub}}, {{bus-stub}}, {{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 {{vehicle-stub}} until the semantics get sorted out. GTBacchus 21:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance here but you think that a {{vehicle-stub}} 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, --hydnjo talk 22:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hydnjo, a vehicle is any "non-living means of transportation." This includes trucks/lorries. So it is obvious that {{vehicle-stub}} is about the only natural supercessor to {{truck-stub}}, just like {{sport-stub}} supercedes {{football-stub}}. Aecis 22:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I caused so much anguish over a damn {{truck-stub}} 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. --hydnjo talk 07:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:::::How do we know what is modern? (Erebus555 11:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
TRUCK-STUB

...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"...?? WikiDon 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy motor vehicle.........????
  • Although I haven't participated in this debate until now, I'd say that {{truck-stub}} is the best choice. It's simple, short, and almost universal; just about everyone who speaks english knows what it means. If the category gets large enough, subcats similar to the ones found in [[|Category:Automobile_stubs|auto stubs]] could be added. Also, I don't think we need to add to many categories, at the moment I'd say that {{bus-stub}}, {{truck-stub}} and {{motorcycle-stub}} should suit our needs. Bjelleklang - talk 19:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{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:

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). sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{Euro-footybio-stub}}, {{SouthAm-footybio-stub}}, and {{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. Caerwine 07:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing what you can get done on a slow day at work...I've put revised figures above, and full census results here. It looks like Oceania does only just make it after all, but I think the convenience of splitting the stubs along exact confederation lines makes all these categories worthwhile. Some other country splits may be possible too, although after England and Scotland the largest is Brazil with 71, so that's probably not worthwhile yet. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two more points. One is that there's currently a discussion over whether to have stub categories use adjective or noun forms. I.e., Category:European football biography stubs or Category: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. Caerwine 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 10:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{footy-stub}} and {{euro-footyclub-stub}}

I have now gone through Category:European football club stubs. I already proposed {{Sweden-footyclub-stub}} (45 stubs) and {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}} (58). To that I would like to add {{NI-footyclub-stub}} (Northern Ireland, currently 35 stubs) and {{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, {{footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? Aecis 14:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will indefinitely postpone the splitting of {{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 {{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 {{footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations. Aecis 22:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the count, and there are 120 "{{footy-org-stub}}s" in {{footy-stub}}. Methinks this is more than enough for a separate stub category. Aecis 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished restubbing the leftover clubs from {{footy-stub}} to {{footyclub-stub}} - there are 100, so I doubt if {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} is going to get big enough (currently 19). I'd support a merge of these back into the parent category. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most clubs in {{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 {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} to {{footyclub-stub}}. Once {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} has been empty for 24 hours, it can be speedily deleted (right?). Aecis 21:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs of {{Org-stub}}

I Propose the following subcategories under {{org-stub}} which is pretty over-full right now:

There are probably more, but that would be a start. GTBacchus 04:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, for a start you don't need the second and fourth ones: {{Party-stub}} or {{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. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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". {{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? GTBacchus 08:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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...? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. BL Lacertae 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean we would keep the name {{honor-stub}}, but redefine it to be a category for stubs relating to any fraternity or sorority, kind of like the way {{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 {{honor-frat-stub}} and {{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. :-\ GTBacchus 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To that I would like to add {{footy-org-stub}}, for football-related organizations, player unions, associations, federations and confederations. I've now gone through the letters A to G of {{footy-stub}}, and I've already come across 81 football-related organizations. Aecis 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) (Update: I've finished the count, and there are 120 footy-org-stubs in footy-stub.)[reply]
  • I've just noticed that {{UK-org-stub}} exists, and is attached to 308 articles, but isn't 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. GTBacchus 00:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses stub - {{JW-stub}}

There is a growing number of Jehovah's Witnesses-related articles that are being given a {{christianity-stub}} or {{reli-stub}}. It would help those interested in improving these articles to have a stub solely for JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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). Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a fan of abbreviated stubs either; the only reason I suggested it was the Catholic one being {{RC-stub}}. Anyway, how's {{Jehovahs-Witnesses-stub}}? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{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 {{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... --Monkbel 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{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. Caerwine 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An extreme example of this is Antarctica. There is only an {{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). Grutness...wha? 23:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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... --Monkbel 07:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{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. Grutness...wha? 07:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about a {{caucasus-bio-stub}} as well? I can't name any numbers but I ran across quite a few Georgians and Armenians while sorting {{bio-stub}}s.--Carabinieri 08:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Split {{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. Mindmatrix 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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. Mindmatrix 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{France-geo-stub}}. 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.Mindmatrix 02:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Mindmatrix 15:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using {{CentreFrance-geo-stub}} instead of just {{Centre-geo-stub}}, which can mean just anything. Conscious 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I also wouldn't see any problem with {{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. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it to {{CentreFrance-geo-stub}}, though it probably won't be created anyway, and {{RhoneAlpes-geo-stub}} is short enough - and more descriptive too. There's at least one reason I'd prefer using {{BasseNormandie-geo-stub}} over {{LowerNormandy-geo-stub}}: the term Basse-Normandie appears in most articles that need to be stubbed with this template. Mindmatrix 00:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support the top nine above "on spec", and anything that hits 60 on the basis on an accurate count, as and when. Alai 16:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindmatrix 16:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{France-geo-stub}}. Mindmatrix 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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... Mindmatrix 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This split is essentially complete; for some reason, only 45 stubs are in the Champagne-Ardenne geo stubs category. All other stub categories had more articles than expected. Mindmatrix 18:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

split of {{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.the1physicist 04:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Alai 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.the1physicist 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Alai 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Laura Scudder | Talk 05:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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? Karol 08:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, both. Any guestimates as to how many stubs each of those suggestions would cover? Alai 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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). — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- SCZenz 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Alai 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- SCZenz 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.) Alai 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- SCZenz 01:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I assumed theoretical would be way too big to be useful. I counted everything that would reasonably fit in theoretical physics (there's actually a good number of stubs on named condensed matter theories). All those I counted as theory I also counted in their respective fields of physics. I didn't make experiment/theory splits by subfield (particle theory stuff got lumped with accelerators), and I think that's best for the stubs, too, as it's rather how the field (and Wikipedia's physics categories) work. — Laura Scudder | Talk 04:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
would subatomic-physics-stub be useful, or too vague, or too broad? Grutness...wha? 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that essentially the same ground as particle physics? Alai 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the list proposed by Laura Scudder. Very nice job.the1physicist 00:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)? Alai 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Laura Scudder | Talk 04:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Alai 05:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two other ideas, although I'm not sure how usefull they would be for stubs: biophysics (or "biological physics") and computational physics. Karol 08:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{law-bio-stub}} splits

I propose splitting {{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 {{law-bio-stub}} could be {{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.--Carabinieri 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With <400 articles in {{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 {{lawyer-stub}} to {{judge-stub}}. I say just leave this be and allow {tl|US-bio-stub}} and {{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}}. Caerwine 01:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have a "slow but continuous trickle of stubs"?--Carabinieri 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Caerwine 23:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The generic term in BE is just "lawyer", though there is of course the split into solicitors 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. Alai 05:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Germany-geo-stub}} splits

I'm pretty sure that every land (the German equivelant to the American states) will deserve it's own cat except maybe Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. Therefore I propose the following:

We can add Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen as necessary once we've gotten these out of the way.--Carabinieri 18:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest getting rid of a few hyphens:
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. Aecis 18:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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). Alai 18:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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
 

This Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania ___location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

, 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.--Carabinieri 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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).) Alai 21:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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, 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 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. Mindmatrix 20:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Alai 01:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{Mecklenburg-WesternPomerania-geo-stub}} and {{NorthRhine-Westphalia-geo-stub}} Caerwine 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.--Carabinieri 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mindmatrix 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm the only one who wants the redirects. If I may, I would suggest, however, that at least Baden-Württemberg be accesible with both {{Baden-Württemberg-geo-stub}} and {{Baden-Wuerrtember-geo-stub}}.--Carabinieri 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with {{Baden-Wurttemberg-geo-stub}} (with no umlaut), since that's the most common spelling in English. There isn't a hard and fast rule about it here, but we do avoid accent marks in template names, for ease of typing. Grutness...wha? 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-midwest-road-stub}}; {{US-northeast-road-stub}}; {{US-south-road-stub}}; {{US-west-road-stub}}

{{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 {{US-geo-stub}} subtree: four regional sub-categories, to be resplit as viable, using the "-road-stub" terminology for consistency and inclusivity. Alai 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Alai 18:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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...) Alai 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Commonwealth-mil-stub}} or {{Oceania-mil-stub}}; and {{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. Alai 02:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Alai 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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? Alai 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created Europe-mil-; starting to populate. Alai 20:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to do this to you, but shouldn't that be {{Euro-mil-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 12:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So now you tell me... I dunno, I see the root category is at euro-, are we using that consistently? Alai 05:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Primate-stub}}

We've got about 75 primate stubs that I can count that are tagged as just mammal stubs. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical to me: parent is quite largeish, if not quite fissile-unstable yet. Alai 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{mil-unit-stub}} & Category: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.) Alai 03:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add a few from Poland-related stubs. I wonder if this category would be only for for unit types, like Chorągiew, or for entire units like 1st Polish Army? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Chorągiew actually appears in my 'count' of unit types, 1st Polish would be in addition to that for actual units. (I didn't count in any of the existing sub-categories.) I started off counting them separately, but it's clear the first doesn't hit the threshold, and them seem more naturally included here than with "ranks", say. Splitting up the actual-units by size doesn't seem likely to work, either, unless we're very careful about size cutoff, which would then probably not be very clear to other stub-sorters. Alai 15:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I am going over the Poland-stub category, here are some relevant ones you may or not may want to add to your list: Armia Ludowa, Batalion Parasol, Batalion Zośka, Confederatio, Confederation of Dzików, Kopia, Lisowczycy, Leśni, Operational Group, Poczet, Polish 28th Infantry Division, Pospolite ruszenie, Prusy Army, Rokosz, Rota (formation), Tajna Armia Polska, Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade. I hope that when you get your new templates you will go over those articles and update them :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Four of them already on the list, rest noted, thanks. Are there enough Polish military stubs in total for a {{Poland-mil-stub}}? Especially as there's a wikiproject... Alai 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the stubs I am considering, but I haven't done the exact count - perhaps you should ask somebody from the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Polish Army to do a count. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I've already mooted it there... :) Given the WP, the threshold would be lower: surely there must be at least 30 or so? I found 15 in the mil-stub category, there's probably more in weapon-stub, firearm-stub, WWII-stub, etc, as well as outside the hierarchy (as are the majority of the above). I think it'd be a shoo-in if someone from the WP suggested it (hint, hint!), but I can hardly force them if they don't want it... Alai 03:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the poland-mil-stub would be feasible, as you point out there are various equipment-related stubs and such (like Ursus wz.29). Btw, found one more unit-stub for you: Zawisza (Szare Szeregi). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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:

I've been counting the stadiums in {{footy-stub}}, and I've found 102 stadium stubs. So this one should easily make it. Aecis 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the number of Coeania struct stubs should get very close to 100 after I've finished re-stubbing the Melbourne categories. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created both, as {{Stadium-stub}} and {{Oceania-struct-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, I think we can benefit from Poland-struct-stub. I have been going through Poland-stubs and Poland-geo-stubs and there would be a few dozen of structures to channel to Poland-struct-stub cat. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you think of natural structures? See my proposal above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They get Poland-geo-stub - and if that category gets too big, they'd be split by region within Poland - same as all other countries. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More geo-stubs

I've also completed the latest tally, and the following look to be ripe to split:

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. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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... Grutness...wha? 06:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all these splits, and also agree on the elimination of {{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. Mindmatrix 19:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{PEI-geo-stub}} or {{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. Mindmatrix 03:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grutness...wha? 03:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished splitting the New Jersey stubs - 168 in all. I was going to suggest splitting off New Hampshire and Maine, just to finish off the US northeast, but there are only 98 stubs left in that category though. Mindmatrix 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the splits are complete. The Iraq category has 74, Guinea has 70. Mindmatrix 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Painters

Another overpopulated category is Category: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. Aecis 14:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we do this, a {{Sculptor-stub}} would also possibly be useful. The other option, of course, would be by nationality. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like {{painter-stub}} would contain just about any article currently in Category:Artist stubs. So perhaps we should already start thinking about splitting {{painter-stub}}. What would be the wisest split? By nationality (e.g. {{UK-painter-stub}}), by genre (e.g. {{abstract-painter-stub}}), or both (and doublestubbing where necessary)? Aecis 11:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As with musicians, I'd favour nationality over style. While a lot of artists stay in the same style throughout their careers, many of them do not, so genre wouldn't necessarily be useful. Was Picasso always a cubist? Was Pollock always an abstract expressionist? Another option would be era - maybe by century, say {{17C-artist-stub}}, {{20C-artist-stub}}, etc. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we sort by era, I think it would be better to sort by style period (e.g. Renaissance, Baroque) than by century. Aecis 11:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{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 state-wise sub-stubs (like the existing ones: {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}} and {{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: {{Jharkhand-geo-stub}} and {{Bihar-geo-stub}}. 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: {{Gujarat-geo-stub}}, {{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. --Bhadani 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That should be ok I think. --Bhadani 13:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs of {{Band-stub}}

Currently this stub (under Music) is 22 pages long – I propose that two sub-stubs be created:

Checking the first three pages of {{Band-stub}} yielded over 200 articles that could go to {{US-band-stub}} and 100 to {{UK-band-stub}} – and there's still 19 more pages to go! Articles not conforming to the new sub-stubs would remain in {{Band-stub}}. Any thoughts? --Bruce1ee 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half-inclined to say "speedy!", but it looks like there are so many of these that yet further splits will be necessary, sooner rather than later. If that pattern holds, there'd be 1500 US bands, which would be waaaaaay in excess of what'd be required for a further split. (By genre, say?) Though I suppose a 'root' category will be necessary anyway; I just wouldn't necessarily bother sorting them immediately, if they'll just have to be re-sorted almost immediately. (Should we have a shortcut at WP:Sisyphus?) The same would be somewhat true of the UK ones. Alai 17:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to sort by genre. The first possible templates that come to mind are {{rock-band-stub}}, {{rnb-band-stub}}, {{hiphop-band-stub}}, {{metal-band-stub}}, {{punk-band-stub}} and perhaps {{jpop-band-stub}}, {{reggae-band-stub}} and {{ska-band-stub}}. Aecis 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure genre is so simple when it comes to bands. In my experience, plenty of bands fall outside easy categorisation in one genre. And I think "rock" is vague enough it could be considered to include all the genres you mentioned... Sorting by country doesn't seem so bad. Genre could be useful to some extent, especially within the huge country divisions, though. --Alynna 23:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with A.K on all points. "Rock" would probably have to be refined to some set of sub-species, like indie-, prog-, AOR-, etc, or some such. Per-country is the more clear-cut place to start, even if it almost immediately gets us back to the genre issue for the Big Two. (Hopefully not too many UK-jpop-band-stubs to worry about, though I've been wrong before...) Alai 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps by composition, at least as a first stage? Obviously a count would need to be done, but {{orchestra-stub}}, {{big-band-stub}}, {{singinggroup-stub}}, would all be distingishable mainly by the instruments played rather than the style of music. Another possibility might be {{backing-band-stub}} for a band such as the E-Street Band that's notable mainly because they were paired with a notable front man. Caerwine 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be far happier with by nationality than by genre, but Caerwine's suggestion has merit (though I'd make it orchestra-stub, jazzband-stub, singinggroup-stub, and backinggroup-stub). Perhaps that first, then by nationality? Genre's pretty amorphous for a lot of bands and you'll end up with arguments about several, I'm sure. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what's the consensus? Splitting by nationality first I think would be easier, and then by genre? How's this for a revised proposal?

If this is acceptable, we just need to settle on the genres. --Bruce1ee 07:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my proposal again, this time showing the genre-within-nationality and the projected counts (counted the first 3 pages then projected to 22 pages). Those stubs with less than 80 hits I've rejected.

--Bruce1ee 10:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've been consistent about always keeping nationality at the start, so if this scheme is followed, it should be {{US-hiphop-band-stub}}, etc. and not {{hiphop-US-band-stub}}. Compare with {{US-film-actor-stub}} and the other sub types of {{US-actor-stub}}. Caerwine 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that – I should've looked at the naming convention of existing stubs. I'll amend accordingly. --Bruce1ee 05:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs of {{theat-stub}}

I would like to propose a stub for plays {{play-stub}} and one for dramatists and playwrights {{playwright-stub}} that would simply be for playwrights. These stubs could also be categorized under {{lit-stub}} and {{writer-stub}}, respectively. These stubs would help to lessen the number of {{theat-stub}}s. What say you? Ganymead 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. --Alynna 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I've been going thru {{lit-stub}} some recently, and one for plays would be quite useful. --Mairi 23:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of clarification...the playwright stub is for writers, poets AND playwrights. I'd like to see one that just includes playwrights. Carry on! *Exeunt* Ganymead 01:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with just theat-stub and I use it quite frequently...I'd misspell it if it were theater-stub...I'm too comfortable typing theatre. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, {{theatre-stub}} and {{theater-stub}} are both redirects. If the non-standard abbreviation is a bother, I suppose we could always go to {{theatrical-stub}}, and be nonstanard because of the use of an adjective instead of a noun. Even if wr don't we might want to change Category:Theatre stubs to Category:Theatrical stubs. Caerwine 03:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop stubs

As I noted above, there are 111 biographies of (arch)bishops in {{reli-bio-stub}}. I don't know how many more there are in e.g. {{christianity-stub}} and {{bio-stub}}. I would like to (again?) propose {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, I'd be more keen simply to split reli-bio-stub by religion rather than actual rank: christian-bio-stub/moslem-bio-stub etc. The problem of course would be people being added to the categories not because they were religious leaders, but simply because they profess a particular religion. So yes, bishop-stub sounds feasible. How about imam-stub? There must be quite a number of them in there, too... Grutness...wha? 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are an immense amount of biographies of muslims in {{islam-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}, which both could do with splitting. So Template:Imam-stub could indeed be viable. Aecis 11:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it last time, but it got no responses, so I'll suggest it again: perhaps something like christian-relibio-stub/muslim-relibio-stub, to indicate that it's just not anyone who professes the religion? Or if not that, perhaps general christian-clergy-stub? --Mairi 18:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't respond to your proposal back then was that I didn't know how I felt about it. I couldn't make up my mind either way, and I still can't. There are pro's and con's to it. Currently, {{reli-bio-stub}} has between 1,100 and 1,200 articles. About 95% of these are about a christian or a muslim. This division would mean that we would replace one large category with two large categories. Another problem is that it could become a catchall for seemingly unrelated people (e.g. 9th century tribal chieftains and 20th century theologians). OTOH, {{muslim-relibio-stub}} or {{islam-relibio-stub}} could be very useful for early muslims who played an important role in the development and spread of islam, but who did not fit within "bureaucratic structures" (like the tribal chieftains). When it comes to christians with stub biographies, many seem to fall within these structures. For them we could use {{christan-clergy-stub}}. Other christians can be double-stubbed {{christianity-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}. Aecis 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following:

{{Christianity-bio-stub}}

{{Catholicism-bio-stub}}
{{papal-stub}}
{{bishop-stub}}
{{Protestantism-bio-stub}} (sounds a little odd)

{{Islam-bio-stub}} (I don't know how that could be split further: I guess Imams would be one definate split)

{{Judaism-bio-stub}}

Further religions: Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, eg, can be split (if necessary) once we've gotten the Big Three out of the way--Carabinieri 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In your structure above, {{bishop-stub}} is a subcat of {{Catholicism-bio-stub}} and so excludes Orthodox, and Anglican bishops, as well as other Christian groups that have bishops? I think it should go directly under {{Christianity-bio-stub}}. In fact, once this is created, is {{Catholicism-bio-stub}} really all that useful? DES (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. Either split by "flavour" or "rank", not by both. How about:

Grutness...wha? 11:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would the theologian ones needs to be "theologian-bio", or could they just be "theologian"? --Alynna 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to professions, we usually don't use "-bio" in the template title, like {{journalist-stub}} and {{economist-stub}}. So I would edit some of Grutness' proposals to {{Clergy-stub}}, {{Bishop-stub}}, {{Pope-stub}}, {{Christian-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}. Aecis 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness on hierarchy, and Alynna and Aecis on the unnecessary "-bio"s. Alai 20:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't {{Imam-stub}} work as well instead of {{Imam-bio-stub}}?--Carabinieri 16:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - my fault. I automatically added "bio" to everything without thinking. I also used the proposed new name of pope-stub (papal-stub is up for renaming at sfd). Grutness...wha? 02:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be {{Christian-clergy-stub}} instead? as clergy isn't necessarily specific to Christianity... Other than that, Grutness's revised proposal sounds good. --Mairi 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{theologist-stub}} has been created prematurely. If it's worth keeping, I think it ought to be renamed to theologian-stub. --Mairi 02:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it ought to be kept as a split of {{reli-bio-stub}} and {{academic-bio-stub}}. {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and {{Christian-theologian-stub}} should be split of {{theologian}} and {{Christianity-bio-stub}} and {{Islam-bio-stub}} respectively.--Carabinieri 14:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis praatpaal 00:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wars and Rumors of Wars

I've come across two wars that each have easily over 80 stubs for them already.

I've found 97 stubs so far for a {{NapoleonicWars-stub}}. I asked over on WikiProject Battles and they indicated a preference for such a stub to include both the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary Wars in a single stub, since for those who do split them apart, there's no agreement over where to put the split. This stub would include wars between the European powers from 1792 to 1815.

I've also found 85 stubs so far pertaining to the American Civil War. I'd prefer to name this {{AmericanCivilWar-stub}} rather than {{USCivilWar-stub}} for two reasons. One is that it wouldn't be right to ignore the CS, and the other is that if I can find enough stubs, I intend to propose a {{BritishCivilWar-stub}} to cover the English Civil War and the interrelated conflict in Scotland and Ireland. Finding enough stubs for the BCW and some other wars I hope to find the necessary stubs will require going thru the history and mil-bio stubs looking for war-related stubs which I haven't done yet. Caerwine 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea... though I'm a little hesitant on the names. The ECW may have spilled over into ireland and Scotland, but it's universally known as the English Civil War. Perhaps a Cromwellian-stub (England/Ireland) and Jacobite-stub (Scotland) instead, with slightly different boundaries as to what is covered by them, might be a way around this? American Civil War I've no problem with as a name, though (BTW, if you're in contact with WP Battles, you might like to ask them about the battle-stub/war-stub problem listed on WP:WSS/D). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite universally... "Wars of the Three Kingdoms", and "British Civil Wars" are more generally-scoped terms. I wouldn't object to EnglishCivilWar-stub being construed "loosely", if there's enough stubs for this to be worthwhile. (There's approximately 0 of these in mil-stub, IIRC.) On war-stub, They're already discussing it "locally" at the WPs, I trust they'll report back in due course. Alai 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there will be many stubs for the English Civil Wars, if only because the subject was quite well-represented in the 1911 EB; many of the articles on the subject were imported directly from it. If it were created, the main proviso would be to avoid naming it {{ThreeKingdomsWars-stub}} or the like, for obvious reasons.
As far as {{War-stub}} versus {{Battle-stub}}, the respective projects are in the process of discussing a merger; assuming that occurs successfuly (probably in a few days), we'll be in a position to redirect {{War-stub}} to a place of your choice :-)
On a related note: any possibilities for a {{Sengoku-stub}}? Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't seem very related. :) I don't know, how are they sorted at present, and roughly how many are there at present? I did wonder at one point whether {{puzzle-stub}} would be a plan: there were certainly quite a few puzzles in {{game-stub}}. Alai 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that you're confusing Sengoku with sudoku ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It must be my sinuses displacing the other contents of my head. :) Part of my question remains material, though: how many, and where are they? I counted 17 Japanese-related articles in mil-stub, only a few of them mediaeval; are there lots lurking in mil-bio, or someplace...? Alai 03:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens in battle-stub; I don't know if further splitting involving that is of interest, however. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Battle-stub is certainly big enough for splitting to be useful, but this sounds more like it'd be an exercise in double-stubbing for these cases, rather of splitting per se. This is more of an exercise in splitting (or starting?) a Japanese-history-related stub category though, really, I think. Alai 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I always find it a battle putting the numbers into tyhe right squares... on a more serious note, a Napoleonic-stub (by that or another name) might also be useful. Grutness...wha? 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that {{Sengoku-stub}} can wait until we have a {{Japan-hist-stub}} to subdivide. As for Cromwell, I've come across 19 stubs so far for the rucki that the Lord Protector was involved with. As might be expected, the Battle stubs are all historical, so of the cats I've searched so far, they've provided most of the feeder stock. Caerwine 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman-stubs

The Ottomans have the misfortune of having had an empire that at its height covered parts of three continents. There are well over 60 Ottoman-related stubs but no stub type for them. Therefore I propose a {{Ottoman-stub}} for them. (I'd also propose a {{Byzantium-stub}} for the same reason but I haven't found 60 Byzantine stubs yet.) Caerwine 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology-stub

We have template:anthropologist-stub, but no template:anthropology-stub. Anthropology is an important science, and many articles that are now tagged template:culture-stub or template:socio-stub would benefit from it. Examples: avunculism, ancestor worship, auxology or cultural artifact. Plus we even have an empty Category:Anthropology stubs, parent to anthropologist-stubs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably well fill a gap - there's quite a bit in culture-stub, archaeology-0stub, and maybe even mammal-stub that could take this. support. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly support Skyodyssey 06:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: going in other direction, I think we would also benefit from template:sociologist-stub. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An anthropology stub is, I think, long overdo. I know our hard-working stub-sorters are fond of abbreviated names; perhaps they'd be interested to know that "anthro" is a pretty common one. {{anthro-stub}}, anyone?--Pharos 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're actually not that fond of abbreviations here - we try to avoid them wherever possible. Mind you, anthro is pretty unambiguous... Grutness...wha? 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cyprus-stub}}

I would like to propose a stub for topics relating to Cyprus. In many cases, I find it wrong to use either {{Greece-stub}} or {{Turkey-stub}}. Cyprus has been an independent country for 45 years. Here is the proposed stub. The code is based on the stubs for {{Greece-stub}} and {{Turkey-stub}}. The flag size (30px) is based on {{Denmark-stub}} and {{Sweden-stub}}.

File:Cyprus flag large.png  This Cyprus-related article is a stub.You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Category:Cyprus stubs

I had not seen the page on this procedure so I'd already created it (my error, sorry!) I have so far used it on just a few articles, but I hope to write more articles on Cyprus-related topics. --Valentinian 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's made... it will probably be useful though. Note though that any geography items relating to Cyprus should be double-stubbed with both this and euro-geo-stub (until such time as there are enough for a separate cyprus-geo-stub, which there aren't yet). Grutness...wha? 06:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I can easily double-stub them. I can see that another user has already created (and renamed) the corresponding category: "Cyprus stubs instead of "Cyprus-related stubs". Should the category be re-named to be consistent with other national categories "Greece-related stubs", "France-related stubs" etc.)? --Valentinian 09:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite the opposite - we're slowly trying to change over all the categories that have "related" as part of their name, since it's not needed. Category:Cyprus stubs is fine. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flag will have to go from the stub, as it is a potential source of controversy given the divided nature of the island. An outline of Cyprus, without the other flag elements should prove to be acceptibly neutral, but as the flag is firmly identified with one of the two sides, it's not sufficiently neutral. This is comparable to the avoidance of the use of the PRC flag in the generic Chinese stubs. Caerwine 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're probably right! Makes me glad to live in peaceful Scandinavia. I guess that two flags is not an option either. Well, I've changed the image to the NASA map of Cyprus (I'd rather have had a white background, but I think it'll do for now. So the new layout is:
File:Modis cyprus lrg.jpg  This Cyprus-related article is a stub.You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Category:Cyprus stubs
I really like that image, and I think it shows the island in the most beautiful month of the year. BTW, regarding the China-stub, the image of the Chinese Dragon has been listed for deletion. --Valentinian 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, of all the drawings I've added to Wikipedia, the one I'm happiest with is the (IMHO) neat political solution I added to Korea-geo-stub. As for the China-stub image, I've changed it to one that should do at least temporarily (and maybe longer if no-one can come up with anything better). Grutness...wha? 03:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The Korean image is a very nice image, but I'm not sure what would fit the bill in the case of Cyprus. An image of the Kyrenia ship perhaps? Problem is, it's not that well known outside of Cyprus - and I don't have a free image! For the moment, I think I'll stick to the map. --Valentinian 07:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Japan-hist-stub}}

As per the comments above from Caerwine and myself, regarding Sod^H^Hengoku related stubs. Alai 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Academic-bio-stub subcategories

There are just under 1200 {{academic-bio-stub}} articles. It needs to be subdivided. Here are my proposed subcategories.

  • acad-agri-bio-stub (Agriculture)
  • acad-acct-bio-stub (Accounting)
  • acad-econ-bio-stub (Economics)
  • acad-edu-bio-stub (Education)
  • acad-engin-bio-stub (Interdisciplinary)
  • acad-lang-bio-stub (Foreign Langue/Linguist)
  • acad-reli-bio-stub (Religion)
  • acad-manage-bio-stub (Management)
  • acad-mkt-bio-stub (Marketing)
  • acad-interdisc-bio-stub (Interdisiplinary Studies)
  • acad-women-bio-stub (Women's Studies)
  • acad-polisci-bio-stub (Political Science)
  • acad-psych-bio-stub (Psychology)
  • acad-soc-bio-stub (Sociology)

I like the idea, but not the names! Why not {{agri-academicbio-stub}} +c? Grutness...wha? 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the name, but some of these duplicate existing categories

That seems like a decent set of names and mostly avoids bunches of icky hyphens. Of course I'd still like to see 60 stubs found before creating new cats. Caerwine 07:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer something like {{educationalist-stub}} to {{pedologist}} (which sounds to me like something to do with feet! That's the problem with dropping that all-important first A in paed-). We also have {{psych-bio-stub}} for psychologists and psychiatrists already - I argued against splitting it earlier since - certainly for the early days of the discipline - the two fields overlap considerably, but perhaps now would be a reasonable time to reassess that. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
doesnt look like weve got it ;)! BL kiss the lizard 18:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, for something like A._V._Williams_Jackson I should ignore the academic part of it and just label it as {{linguist-stub}}? Alison9 04:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by ignore the academic part; liguistics is an academic discipline, and the permanent "linguists" category is a sub-cat of "academics". Presumably linguist-stub should likewise be a sub-cat of academic-stub (though it isn't at present, admittedly). Also agree with Caerwine, at least approximate numbers would be nice. Alai 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So is this the right page to get approval for making linguist and the other existing cats a sub-cat of academics? Alison9 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what being bold is for ;) but yes, making them sub cats of academic-bio-stub would be a good idea. --Mairi 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We will definately need theologist-stub. The focus seems to be on Islam at the moment. Alison9 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the prposed split of reli-bio-stub elsewhere on this page. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done for linguist-stub; in some other cases it may be less clear-cut whether all (or nearly all, or all notable) people in a given category are academics, so I'll be no more bold for now (but don't let me stop anyone else). Though where the permanent category already does it, it should be safe -- unless there's an on-going edit-war over that, or something. Alai 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially the sociologist-stub and historian-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{theologist-stub}} has been created (prematurely no less), even tho all but one mention called it theologian-stub. --Mairi 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Macao-stub}}

There are at least 39 articles, including ___location articles, suitable to be tagged as Macao-stub. Most of these articles are already tagged with other stub types, such as {{asia-struct-stub}}, {{food-stub}} and {{tourism-stub}}. Placing them under a category will help editors interested in Macao to expand them. Since both spellings (i.e. Macau and Macao) are used in English, it would be best for either one to be redirected to the other. — Instantnood 19:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 39 is rather slim, especially if it's to cover both -geo- and general stubs. I think I'm probably going to regret saying this, but ordinarily these would simply be categorised under {{china-stub}} and {{china-geo-stub}}, both of which are largeish, but sub-critical. Alai 19:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say lumping these entries into China-stub would be far from desirable, and wouldn't be helpful for editors. There are slimmer stub types, e.g. category:Gibraltar-related stubs. — Instantnood 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they're not usually listed with china-stub, so that's not a concern - the geo-stubs are in Asia-geo-stub, to start with. 39 is pretty slim, given that you're trawling several categories that are hardly overburdened. As for Gibraltar-stub, it was created without being proposed here and is one of several currently on a list for potential pruning via SFD. My advice (don't tell anyone I said this...) is to create a few more Macanese stubs. If the number suddenly shot up, then there'd be more chance of a separate stub being viable. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{China-geo-stub}} explicitly excludes Hong Kong, Macau, amd Taiwan from its area of coverage. {{China-stub}} is less exclusive, but it has sub types for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet nonetheless. I agree that 40 stubs is rather slim (Macau Grand Prix is a stub probably not tagged by ntnood}, but if there is someone who is planning to actively work on Macau-related topics, I wouldn't object to a {{Macau-stub}} with a 'u' and not an 'o'. Caerwine 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed the "Mainland China" stub category, which I think is itself in variance to "normally": our geographic splits are by present-day countries, and it's pretty clear that Hong Kong and Macau locations would ordinarily be in, or be sub-cats of, china-geo-stub. Taiwan I ain't saying nuthin' 'bout... Alai 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, with all due respect, you were at least partly responsible for that (if you recall our discussions at the beginning of the year). Theoretically the HK & Macau ones should be in there, but there aren't enough Macao ones for a separate category (10 at last count), and they'd get drowned out in the mass of Mainland stubs. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I don't think the sudden appearance of 39 redlinks to the proposed template are exactly helpful to this deliberation process. Rather jumping the gun, aren't we? Alai 16:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for tagging the articles before the proposal is approved here. I believe the number is pretty close to 50 or 60, and therefore I was using the special:whatlinkshere tool to do the count. There are definitely more than 39 existing Macao-related stubs. When the mainland China-Taiwan split was done earlier this year, there was no Macao-related geography stub, so the problem was not surfaced. I guess these Macao-related geography stubs can be tagged with {{Macao-stub}} and {{Asia-geo-stub}}, like Gibraltar do with {{Gib-stub}} and {{Euro-geo-stub}} (and not {{BritOT-geo-stub}}).

    As for the spelling, both spellings would do, but since both are commonly used in English (in fact -o is preferred by its government), it would be best one is a redirect to another. — Instantnood 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • As is explained on WP:SFD, BritOT-geo-stub is a bit of a kludge. Once everything else was out of geo-stub and into its separate categories, all that was left were things like British Indian Ocean Territories, Tristan da Cunha and the Falklands. In fact, with one exception (which I expanded beyond stub level), everything there was a British colony. If there was a better place for them, it would be great, but for now at least BritOT is the best make-weight. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's at least 60 (and a count would be nice, rather than 39 sometimes-marginal candidates, and the assertion there's more), then create it as {{Macau-stub}}, with Macao as a redirect, not v.v. [Macau]] is the spelling in the article, the category, and pretty generally in WP. And wins 3:1 in googlefight. Alai 17:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The googlefight may not accurately reflect the truth: Macau is the only spelling in Portuguese (after a spelling reform) and some other languages, while in many others like English both are used. Portuguese is one of the two official languages of Macao. While using Macau in Portuguese, the Macanese government prefers using Macao in English. — Instantnood 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Searching for both terms in English pages only, makes the ratio more than 4:1 (in the same direction). The Macanese government's preference isn't reflected elsewhere in Wikipedia, doing so here would be highly anomalous. Alai 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out that Instantnood, despite opposition here, has decided to create {{Macao-stub}}, {{Macau-stub}}, and Category:Macao stubs moments ago. I too oppose the creation of this entire family of stubs over disagreements of the appriopriate naming for Macau. Is instantnood using these stubs to promote terms he prefers?--Huaiwei 09:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming: American foo stubs to either US foo stubs

We have a number of mismatched category names where stubs such as {{US-politician-stub}} have a category named like Category:American politician stubs. I counted seven categories that are like that. [There are also two American football stub categories that can probably keep their current names—Category:American football stubs ({{Amfootball-stub}}) and Category:American football biography stubs ({{Amfootbio-stub}})].The "American" in the category names should be changed to either "US" or "United States". BlankVerse ∅ 02:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a big enough topic to go at the foot of the page.. I'd prefer changing all of these and the ones starting "US" to ones starting "United States" . I'd also like to replace all the categories which start "UK" with ones starting "United Kingdom". Grutness...wha? 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European royalty stubs

There is already a {{Euro-royal-stub}}, but it currently redirects to {{Euro-noble-stub}}. It has over 75 articles using it nonetheless, and there are a fair number of articles that have been double stubbed with {{Euro-noble-stub}} and {{royal-stub}}. I think it's time to give {{Euro-royal-stub}} a category of its own. Caerwine 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. We could also clean up the existing {{Portugal-royal-stub}} / Category:Portuguese nobility stubs so it has a clear scope... --Mairi 04:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but if you are looking at these, I would like to suggest going straight to {{Germany-royal-stub}}, {{France-royal-stub}} and - as Piotr is bound to suggest it anyway :) - {{Poland-royal-stub}}. The count for Germany is 134 - I'll do the others presently. We could also do with a specific stub for rulers of the kingdoms in the UK before it was a single country. These are presently scattered through royal, UK-royal and UK-noble (which is where they seem to be menat to go, rather awkwardly): I've found so far 91. (Would it be asking for trouble to suggest that the ancient Irish rulers could go in there as well? in which case another 20 or so). Not sure though what it could best be called - {{UK-PCroyal-stub}}? (= pre-conquest?)Staffelde 11:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may be having a problem of definition here. If we count petty kings as royals rather than as just nobles it's going to raise the count of royals considerably. In the case of Germany for example, I would not count the Kings of Bavaria as royalty, because Bavaria was never a sovereign national realm, so I would place any stubs articles about the King and Queens of Bavaria and their children under {{Euro-noble-stub}} (or {{Germany-noble-stub}} once that is created). By using the same standard, almost all of the Irish kings are actually nobles and not royals. Caerwine 23:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good god.Is that nonsensical redirection still there? There was agreement to remove that months ago but Gruntness fought a lone battle to stop that. But Caerwine is simply wrong in definitions. If it the subject is a monarch, then they should get a royal stub. Saying that Bavarian royals weren't royals, or that Irish kings weren't royals, is POV and not on. If they were called a king, then we have to treat them as a king and not say 'well we disagree' so we are going to call them something else. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

FWIW, I thought it had been deleted ages ago, too. (it's not "gruntness" either, BTW :) Grutness...wha? 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely: the objection is not based in fact. Bavaria, e.g., WAS a sovereign nation for centuries, as were all the other territories that were eventually lumped together as "Germany" - and the same for most of the rest of the world. It is not for us to say now that only certain monarchies were "real" monarchies. Nor do I understand the concern about "raising the count of royals", as if there were some intrinsic merit in avoiding it. {{Euro-noble-stub}} doesn't work well at the moment precisely because it is stuffed with articles on people who were royals and shdn't be there.
Clearly there is some difference in kind between, again e.g., the monarchies of the UK, Prussia etc in their developed forms, and the kings of the Hwicce and so on, and this is surely one of the reasons why it is worth having separate stub categories for them.Staffelde 01:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fairly sensible. (Though it was better as a redirect, than as a pointer to a redlink category, as at present... Not that'll affect the categorisation immediately, anyway.) OTOH, given the size of Euro-noble-, it'll be necessary to split that by country (or some other geographical subdivision, at any rate), and I'd be keener to do that first. And presumably lots of countries will have a 'viable' number of nobles+royals, but not royals by themselves, so I don't think we'll see the end of double-stubbing anytime soon... Alai 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should be based on royal-stub, but we need a clear defintion of what can go there. Recently when I was sorting Euro-noble-stubs into Poland-noble-stubs I had to remove a lot of Euro-royal-stubs, and wondered who and why added those into the relevant articles. What about princes and dukes, like Grand Duke of Lithuania or Polish dukes during the time of division/fragmentation when Poland had no king (~14th century)? What about family of the king, especially in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were some were elected from families that have never before been kings (like Michał Wiśniowiecki, King of Poland - were his parents or children royality?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bavaria's problem wasn't so much it's lack of independence, as the Holy Roman Empire imposed but a light yoke on its constituent states, but it's lack of nationhood. However, Bavaria is definitely an edge case, and besides, a more serious problem is how closely do you have to be to a reigning monarch in order to be counted as royal? Obviously children should be counted as well as grandchildren that are in the line of succession, but once you get past that we're going to run into disputes. I'm not so much concerned with where the line is drawn, as that it be drawn so that there is a clear boundary between royal and non-royal. BTW, I was bold and since someone else had changed the stub from a redirect into an independednt stub that pointed to a redlink category, I went ahead and created the category, tho I haven't listed it as yet. Caerwine 00:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, should we decide to keep this, we won't need any null-edits, tho we definitely need to decide on a scope for a what counts as royal, and what is close enough to be in a royal family. If we define this too broadly, there won't be any difference bwtween being royal and being noble, given how inbred the European nobility is. Caerwine 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the Kings of Bavaria, aside from a very brief overlap, weren't HRE subjects at all; rather they were Kurfuersten, and as such required not to call themselves kings -- and when some of them did, it was the beginning of a very rapid end to the (non-)Empire. (Just to confuse matters, the rulers of Bavaria did use the title "king" during and as part of the Kaiserreich.) Now, whether a Prince-Elector is "royal" is somewhat inobvious, and somewhat depends on one's definition. The "from sceptre to shovel" question is pretty fuzzy too, that's an entirely valid point. Naturally each present day or historical country has an internal system that is (or isn't) marvelously consistent and clear about the different ranks and layers of nobility (and royalty), but that doesn't mean a single universal definition can readily be extracted. Even particular titles can be confusing: consider "Serene Highness", for exampleAlai 02:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to a useful point made by Alai, for most countries / geo'l regions, the category "royal + noble = viable" is a very effective solution, provided it is possible to find a term that means both royal AND noble, as otherwise, regardless of the intent, there will be constant arguments about it. Is {{Foo-royal&noble-stub}} technically possible?
On the subject of what constitutes "royal", it would be very misleading to limit this category to ruling houses that happened to call themselves "kings": if - for the sake of argument only - there were such a category as {{Germany-royal-stub}}, anybody browsing it would surely expect it to contain all the German ruling houses, whether they were Kings, Princes, Dukes or anything else. Obviously, though, what applies in Germany need not apply elsewhere Staffelde 10:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with German terminology to say what the most logical "split" in that case would be. But for the "unsplit" categories, I think X-noble-stub is perfectly adequate (esp. if one is going to double-stub the royals with some geographically broader royal category, too). Indeed, it strikes me as logical to make the assorted "royal" categories sub-cats of the corresponding "noble" ones. Alai 00:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps implementing this proposal would open a Pandora's box of controversial and POV stubbings, but here it goes: How about having two templates, Foo-royal-stub and Foo-noble-stub, feeding into one category, Foo royalty and nobility stubs? That way you got two intuitive templates feeding into one viable category. It would also end the issue of who belongs in which category, because all would go into the same bowl. Aecis 11:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its because as a firm small-r republican, I've never bothered to notice but aren't all royals also nobles or is there even such a thing as a non-noble royal? I just do not see why having royal stubs being subtypes of noble stubs won't work. Caerwine 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are two different things, and have (or historically, had) different functions. A possible comparison is in the RC church: all Popes are also priests, but they are sufficiently important, and different in function, to require separation. It would be inefficient for potential editors, and also totally inaccurate, to bury the Popes in a swamp of low to middle grade priests and bishops, or even Cardinals. Similarly, if you bury the royals in a swamp of low to middle grade "nobles", or even non-royal dukes, it is less efficient, and additionally gives the impression that Wikiedia generally isn't very well-informed - which is not a good thing for a would-be authoritative encyclopaedic source.
But if there is a good reason for doing that, as with the smaller countries where there are too few of either to justify a complete split, then the category title needs to make it completely clear that the category contains BOTH nobles AND royals (ie, that at least Wikipedia knows that there is a difference): if it doesn't, this argument is bound to recur at regular intervals until the question is sorted properly. We may as well do it now.(Staffelde, 31 Oct, 18.12 my time, from a machine on which I can't log in)
To answer your actual question, yes it is possble to have a non-noble monarch - you only need to look at the Roman emperors, who latterly were successful generals. Later monarchies were in practice virtually limited to the nobility for other reasons - heredity or a restricted circle of choice, mostly - but the two are not the same. (Staffelde again)
It's certainly the case that royalty don't always come from among the nobility, but it's less clear that this doesn't in effect co-opt them to it. Often with the assumption of noble-style names, titles, etc. The logic of this can be discussed on a country-by-country basis, though. (In this case, patrician- and imperial- would be more descriptive.) As to the "swamping" point: clearly that's the case; (part of) the whole point of stub-sorting is to avoid over-large and under-specific stub-cats. But equally, we don't want under-sized ones. Suppose, hypothetically, that we have the proverbial Small European Country for which there are 46 noble (qua noble) stubs, and 19 royals. I think it'd be preferable to sort them into single SmallEuroCountry-noble-stub category (double-stubbing the latter as euro-royal-, too), than dividing them into two undersized ones, or to leaving them unsorted. Alai 22:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you say, except for the matter of the category name. If you call such a category SmallEuroCountry-noble-stub and then include in it people who are unarguably royal, then regardless of the logic behind it there will continue to be disagreements about it, simply because the term 'noble' neither means nor includes the term 'royal', and every time another user notices that, they will point it out all over again. If you have a category called Trains and then put ships in it, you can expect constant arguments to the effect that a ship is not a train. If for good reasons, such as lack of quantity, you need to group ships and trains together, the category has to be called something else - eg, "vehicle" or "ships and trains" - that includes BOTH ships AND trains. May I refer back to the comparison with popes and cardinals, or bishops? If anyone suggested grouping popes with bishops for no other reason than that the Pope is bishop of Rome, and that they were a small-p protestant, so hadn't bothered to notice what the difference was, the argument would be over very quickly, and not in their favour - and the question here is rather similar.
The difficulty can be bypassed by the use of a satisfactory term that really covers both noble and royal (it seems to me a clear indication that there is a real distinction between them, that in fact it is not very easy to think of one, but perhaps this is my non-republican - with a small n - background showing up). "Imperial" only applies to empires; "patrician" is simply too imprecise. Would titled would do? Both royalty and nobility have titles of a particular sort, ie, titles of rank, which distinguish them from the rest of the population in their respective countries. So would {{SmallEuroCountry-titled-stub}} be acceptable? Or if not, can we look again at my earlier suggestion of {{SmallEuroCountry-royal&noble-stub}}?Staffelde 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{mil-bio-stub}}

I've done a preliminary count of the first 200 of these, will work through more later. I've created {{US-mil-bio-stub}}, as per earlier proposal: unsurprisingly, there's a metric shedload of them (over 80 already). {{UK-mil-bio-stub}} looks sensible and viable too, but nothing else seems obviously so. Perhaps {{France-mil-bio-stub}}, if there's significant numbers in other categories. Only a handful of Russians and Poles, but seemingly they're viable on the basis of their country-bio-stubs, so I'll lob such as I find in once those are created, as I assume they will be anyway. (This makes me wonder how many other countries have a lurking iceberg of mil-bio-stubs without the tag.) Alai 00:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll also moot {{Germany-mil-bio-stub}} as a possibility; might be ~75 of them in mil-stub. Alai 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still counting: UK is at least 72, I'd guess something like 120 in total. Germany looks on track, France doesn't. US will probably be 400-500, so well on the way to being re-split itself. I'm going to further suggest {{Europe-mil-bio-stub}} as a catch-all and super-cat (for UK and Germany, and the elsewhere-proposed Poland), with similar logic to the already-proposed {{Europe-mil-stub}}. Alai 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. We already have {{Poland-mil-bio-stub}}. I am sure most countries deserve their own as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Exactly 400 US ones. (Pant, pant.) This could probably be re-split into present-day branches (US Army, USN, USAF); and the Civil War (maybe two separate categories). 121 UK and 78 German stubs. Also above threshold, and hereby proposed: {{Asia-mil-bio-stub}}; {{Americas-mil-bio-stub}}. The following made it into double digits, but nowhere near the threshold. However, it might be worth checking the corresponding country-bio-stub categories for more militarists, in some cases, especially given the examples of Poland and Russia:
    • France, 32
    • Russia, 29
    • Canada, 26
    • Yugoslavia (as was, and FYRs), 22
    • Poland, 20
    • China, 19
    • Ancient Rome, 19
    • Greece, 15
    • Ireland, 14
    • Italy, 14
    • Japan, 13
    • Norway, 12
    • Sweden, 12
    • Pakistan, 11
    • Israel, 10

Alai 03:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the list of Polish ones? I could move the to Polish-mil-stub. Another question: does the {{soldier-stub}} redirects here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but I've already sorted them! About half of what's currently in {{poland-mil-bio-stub}} is sorted from mil-bio-... I assume the category is looking a little "light" because the 90-odd reported found in {{Poland-bio-stub}} haven't been completely sorted yet. And yes, soldier-stub redirects to mil-bio... Alai 03:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Poland-hist-stub}}

There are quite a few articles that currently have both the template:Poland-stub and template:history-stub (or related) and could be replaced with this more specialized template. Few examples: Drzymała's van, Free City of Kraków, Golden Liberty, Mickiewicz's Legion, Positivism in Poland, Polnische Wehrmacht, Polish United Workers' Party, Provisional Polish Revolutionary Committee, Regency Council and many others. It may be also wise to do this for many other countries: {{Germany-hist-stub}}, {{France-hist-stub}}, {{Russia-hist-stub}}, {{Spain-hist-stub}}, {{Italy-hist-stub}} and others woudl surely yeld many hits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish history stub seems like a good idea, it would give more clear version of the article. Connecting events with history of other nations shouldn't be a problem. --Molobo 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the problem of defining Germany pre-1806 and with the Nazi Germany articles already split off into a separate stub type, {{Germany-hist-stub}}'s a bit more problematic, but probably viable. Caerwine 02:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel-stub

The wording of {{leisure-corp-stub}} is imo a bit clumsy: "This article about an entertainment-related, leisure-related, sports-related or tourism-related corporation, or about a hotel or a chain of hotels, is a stub. ..." I would like to take hotels, hotel chains and resorts out of the equation and give them their own stub template: {{hotel-stub}}. There are currently 62 stubs about hotels in Category:Leisure corporation stubs. Aecis 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Hotel-corp-stub and you've got a deal. To me, hotel-stub would mean the building, like church-stub and stadium-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But what I just thought about: hotel-stub could also refer to the hotelling business as a whole. That might trim down econ-stub and business-stub as well, and expand the "Hotel [corporation] stubs" category. The problem is that I don't know if there are any such stubs. So I think I'll stick with hotel-corp-stub. Aecis 10:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Still don't like the hotel-stub name, though, but with the expanded category it probably needs a slightly different name to the -corp-stub standard. Any ideas? Grutness...wha? 12:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since that segment gets called the lodging industry (at least here in the States it does) how about a {{lodging-corp-stub}}? Caerwine 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's a US only term - here if you said "lodging industry" I'd think you were talking about real estate. Hotels and the like are the "hospitality industry" here. Hotel-corp-stub still sounds a reasonable choice to me. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germany noble stub

This would be very handy for the 96 relevant stubs in {{Germany-bio-stub}} and the 200+ waiting to be reassigned in {{Noble-stub}} and subdivisions, on the same basis as the equivalents for UK, France and Poland.Staffelde 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I just finished moving Polish nobles from Euro-noble-stub to Poland-noble-stub :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Okay - who pushed that lump of plutonium into the noble-stub category? Looks like it's gone critical in the last couple of days! Grutness...wha? 12:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game stubs

I'd like to propose {{anime-cvg-stub}} as a blanket stub for anime games. There are many stubbed games articles relating to either the genres mentioned in the anime game article or those based on an anime/manga property. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I'd like to make a {{cvg-culture-stub}}, it could cover gaming terms, magazines and events. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category has now 576 articles. Would it be best to move some of these articles that are related to history to a new {{China-hist-stub}}? — Instantnood 15:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Between {{Asia-hist-stub}}, {{battle-stub}}, and {{China-stub}}, it shouldn't be a problem to find more than 60 stubs for a {{China-hist-stub}}. I did manage to trim {{China-stub}} just now by sending about 20 stubs to {{China-bio-stub}} where they belonged instead, and there should be others that can similarly profit form such a restubbing.
And perhaps some to {{Asia-myth-stub}} too. — Instantnood 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well those stubs should be double stubbed as {{China-stub}} and {{Asia-myth-stub}} until such time as we have enough to justify a {{China-myth-stub}}. Caerwine 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Culture

I'm working on some articles dealing with so-called demogroups and a lot of the articles about these groups are currently very sparse. Unfortunately, there's not a suitable stub-category for these groups and people doing stub sorting keep putting them in all kinds of different categories, such as org-stub and bio-compu-stub. Is it a good idea to create something like a computer culture category for stubs? Let's say compu-cult-stub for instance? This could also house all kinds of other hacker/computing culture stuff. Nmrd 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the above from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types --Alynna 15:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poland geo-stub split

{{Poland-geo-stub}} has over 800 entries. I think we need to create {{Poland-struct-stub}} and some administrative divisions (by Polish voivodships, perhaps?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voivodships stub seems a good proposal, although a smaller stub with regions of Poland could be named in cases of natural landmarks or such perhaps ? --Molobo 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the discussion about splitting India-geo-stub, and earlier discussions about France and Germany geo-stub splitting. In essence, split off any voivodships that meet the criteria - typically 80 for each geo-stub, though something borderline would probably be accepted. (Note: some editors set the mark at 75, others at 60.) Mindmatrix 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for Poland-struct-stub, there are under 10 Polish structures listed in Euro-struct-stub, so that one's a non-starter. I'm not sure what Molobo means by "In cases of natural landmarks", but if he's talking about mountain-stubs and lake-stubs, then - as always - that would also be no. Splitting by Voivodship sounds like a good idea (how many are there in Poland?) If so, the usual ideas apply - do a tally up, and the largest would be the most natural to split off (as Mindmatrix says, see the discussions above re:Germany, France, and Japan). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Poland-struct-stubs, there may be very few in the Euro-struct-stub, but there are many more spread through other struct-stub, like university-stub or statium-stubs. Also, I estimate they are at least 50 relevant stubs in Poland-geo-stub (which may overlap with existing struct-stubs somewhat due to double stubbing) - in my brief analysis of first stub page (stubs from A to J) I found had 15 struct-stubs. As for voivodship-specific stubs, I don't have time to do a count - perhaps somebody from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland will help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking I don't see a need to further disambiguate stub templates. After all they are but a message that there's work to do. And the hint should be that the work to do is on the article, not on the stub message. After all what we should focus on is to limit the number of stubs, not number of stub messages in certain category. Halibutt 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps an extreme example will expain why it's necessary. Delaware currently has four geography stubs. We don't have a Category:Delaware geography stubs, because as soon as it was created, any diligent editor would fix the four stubs leaving an empty category. Which might well be speedily deleted as deprecated 24 hours later. Then another Delaware geo-stub is found. So the category is recreated. That's fixed by the same editor, so the category is then speedied, then... Since this wouldAlso, it would mean that instead of having a very large but workable number of stub categories (around 500), we would have many, many times that many. Imagine what would happen if every country had a geo-stub a bio-stub, a hist-stub, a struct-stub, a bcast-stub, a rail-stub, a politician-stub, a party and a general purpose country-stub. Ten times 200+ countries - that's over 2000 stub types before we even get onto things like the sciences! Stub sorting would become virtually impossible, and would be many times the amount of work it currently is (and that's already too much). For that reason, we set a lower limit of around 60 stubs for a new category to be created. On the other hand, editors could easily be overwhelmed trying to find articles to work on in categories that are big and of too wide a scope, so we like to have an upper limit on category size (preferably around 1000 stubs). Currently there are nowhere near enough Poland building and structure stubs for a separate category, but splitting Poland-geo-stub into separate Voivodships might well be useful. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Director stubs

We currently have a fair number of stubs in the {{tv-bio-stub}} and {{theat-stub}} for people who direct acting productions and a poorly named stub, {{film director-stub}}, for those who are notable just for film directing. I'm proposing that we:

  1. Create a new stub, {{director-stub}} for those who are notable for have directed in more than one of film, theatre, or television. I realize that there are other types of of directors than those of thespians, but this should be unambiguous enough, especially in conjunction with its sub types.
  2. Rename {{film director-stub}} as {{film-director-stub}} (This will require an sfd-t, but I'd like to get things squared away as far as how we'll organize the directors before starting that.)
  3. Create a new stub, {{theat-director-stub}} for directors of theatrical plays.
  4. Create a new stub, {{tv-director-stub}} for directors of televison episodes.

I can see not wishing to bother with {{tv-director-stub}} since in the post-1945 era there is considerable overlap with other types of directors, but the other three are nice solid proposals in my opinion. Caerwine 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-geo-stub

The Illinois-geo-stub category has over 100 entries in it now, more than half or which are in Chicago. Would be easier to get Chicago folks to contribute if the stubs were more specific. Tedernst 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over 100? Sir, that's a tiny category! Seriously, we don't usually look to start splitting these things until there are 300 or so stubs. There is a {{Chicago-stub}}, though, so it would make plenty of sense to double-stub those items with both Illinois-geo-stub and Chicago-stub. That way, any Chicago editors who don't want to have to pick and choose among the 40-50 non-Chicago Illinois-geo-stubs can do so. Mind you, Chicago editors are probably more likely to know about places elsewhere in that state than the majority of other Wikipedians... Grutness...wha? 23:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness about double-stubbing with {{Chicago-stub}}. The drawback, of course, is that there's no category that finds articles that are double-stubbed in this way. And to provide some perspective, the province of Ontario has about 1000 stubs right now, and it isn't going to be split anytime soon.I can see why you'd find the split useful, but I don't think it's necessary yet. Mindmatrix 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't get what a "big number" was. Sorry about that. I've done what you've suggested and double-stubbed with Chicago stub. Thanks! Tedernst 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba-geo-stub

There are currently 353 articles in {{Caribbean-geo-stub}}. A google search suggests that about 60 to 70 of these are for Cuban geography stubs, so I would like to propose {{Cuba-geo-stub}}. Aecis 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last week there were 42. Have a look at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying. Cuba is nowhere near the top of the list. If any were to be split off, Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic would be before Cuba. In any case, 353 is not as big as some other categories - no need to create this one yet, and I'll be tallying the category up again in a couple of weeks time, so if it has grown since last week, we'll know for certain then. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness on this one. Mindmatrix 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 42? Then I withdraw the proposal immediately. But I'm still baffled. How is it possible that a (from my point of view) large country like Cuba has only 42 geography stubs? That is less than half of the Faroe Islands! Aecis 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Size of country and number of stubs don't fully correlate (otherwise we'd be swamped in Russian, Indian, and Mainland China stubs, to start with). In the case of Cuba vs the Faaroes, Scandinavia as a whole always ranks very high in web access, and Cuba much less so. Remember too that Cuba is still politically somewhat isolated, and that might make for smaller numbers of Cuban editors on the English Wikipedia. Then again, perhaps there are lots of Cuban articles which have been expanded beyond stub size. Or lots of Cuba geography stubs not marked as such (there is a Category:Cuba stubs - I'll check that for geo-stubs, but there are only about 40 stubs in total in that, so that probably won't take Cuba up to threshold). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(update) There were a hanbdful more in Category:Cuba stubs, but there'd still be only about 50 in all. It is growing, slowly, though, so a Cuba-geo-stub's not impossible in the next few months. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Size of country and number of stubs indeed don't fully correlate, but I would expect there would be so many Cuban geographical features to write about, that even if a large percentage of them wouldn't have an article, there still would be more than enough for a separate stub template/category. Cuba indeed doesn't rank very high in web access, but "mainland Cuba" (the Cuban community in Florida) probably does. But I don't know how they are represented on Wikipedia. Aecis 09:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gum Stub

There should be a stub for gum, I know all the Dentenye's are stubbed and I'm too lazy to find the others (I know I seen them)--FlareNUKE 06:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

over 60 gum stubs? Are you sure? I don't think I've ever seen one! Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully any existing stubs for gums are in the Category:Food & drink stubs. While I would be skeptical that there are 60 stubs, I wouldn't be surprised to some there. Caerwine 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{nonfiction-book-stub}}

This currently has 906 members. Looking over its contents, I would suggest {{poli-book-stub}}, {{non-fiction-hist-book-stub}} and {{sci-book-stub}}. {{hist-book-stub}} is currently being used for historical fiction; I'm not sure, though, if that name shouldn't properly go to books about actual history, with the historical fiction at {{fiction-hist-book-stub}}; scratch that, {{hist-fiction-book-stub}}.--Pharos 23:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

might I suggest something I suggested back when hist-book-stub was made - subdividing nonfiction-book-stub using the word text? {{sci-text-stub}}, {{hist-text-stub}}, {{poli-text-stub}}... Grutness...wha? 01:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Scotland-geo-stub postponed until re-count done!

I was planning to leave this one until the England split was a bit further on, but given that there's a brand new Scottish Wikipedians' notice board and stirrings in the glens over Scotland-stub, now is an opportune moment. Scotland has 32 unitary authorities, though several of them can be considered together in the same way as England's Yorkshire and Sussex geo-stubs (North Lanarkshire/South Lanarkshire, for instance). I've gone through half of the 800 Scotland geo-stubs so far, and the following look like likely splits:

  • {{Glasgow-geo-stub}} so far, a clear 25% of the stubs I've counted have been Glaswegian ones
  • {{Highland-geo-stub}} - nearly 50 already, with about 400 stubs still to count.

It's also possible that Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders will each have enough stubs for separate categories, but I'll hold off on them for now. Similarly, if the Orkneys and Shetlands were combined into one stub category, they would very likely reach threshold (40 so far, so an estimated 80 overall).

I'd also like to suggest re-wording the recently discovered Hebrides-geo-stub. The Hebrides straddle three different unitary authorities. The Outer Hebrides are a unitary authority on their own (Western Isles); ,the Inner Hebrides are divided between Highland and Argyll & Bute. If it was re-named as {{WesternIsles-geo-stub}} /Category:Western Isles geography stubs it would also make a useful subcategory. Grutness...wha? 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (one of the Shetland stubs is for Grutness :)[reply]

UPDATE: I've counted 80% of the stubs, and it looks like Glasgow and Highland will be the only two past threshold - but between them they'll take fully 35% of the stubs (probably about 140 each). Renaming Hebrides to Western Isles at the same time would be very useful - and would probably push Argyll & Bute up to threshold, too (it's the next largest and includes some of the Inner Hebrides), so I'll add a proposal for that one too. Aberdeen, Borders, Orkney and Shetland aren't likely to make threshold - yet. Grutness...wha? 12:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The count is finished - and I'll add {{Argyll-geo-stub}} for Argyll and Bute, which also easily passes threshold. The counts are on my geo-stub page if anyone's interested. Those four subcats should reduce the main Scotland category from 800 to 470. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked up the "new" Aberdeenshire, and I have to admit I'm more confused than ever. It's a part of the world which I know well, but Banff in Aberdeenshire? Banffshire used to be a county, and to add to the confusion the boundaries of Moray have been changed yet again. It's not a simple matter of Banffshire going into Aberdeenshire, the lines have been redrawn bizarrely; I get the impression that the bureaucrats behind it have spent little time in the area! --MacRusgail 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've loaded up the geo lists with what needs to be moved where. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This shouldn't matter a great deal for the three currently on the table (give or take Helensburgh and Lomond, quite contentious around my old neck of the woods...), but I've only just notice that splitting by unitary council is being proposed. Why not by Lieutenancy areas, the direct analogue to the way the English stubs were split? I may have spoken too soon about precedents... Alai 01:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that looks a much better system and should solve problems like Banff, and split Highland up nicely into easier packages. Unfortunately, it will need a recount of just about all of the stubs. Scotland seems to use several different systems for local government, and I didn't even know about this one. The boundaries look very similar to the old traditional counties. OK folks - I'll ask for a brief postponement on this one until I can do the recount... Grutness...wha? 08:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I forgot that Highland isn't a single LA; that's what happens when one doesn't follow one's own links! Shouldn't make much difference to Glasgow, though, at least. Scotland only uses one system for local government as such, but... it's changed significantly three times or so in the last thirty years; there's various holdovers from previous systems (as you say, LAs are a lot like the old counties; likewise, police forces, transit bodies, and such like often keep the same structure they had under regionalisation). If it wasn't for the fact that I was in Ireland, I might not know quite where I lived... Alai 15:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep watching. Quite a few of the boundaries are similar (Fife, Clackmannan, Orkney, Shetland, Angus, etc), so hopefully it won't take long to do the re-count. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland split redux

I've still got about 80 to pinpoint, but it looks like four subgroups can still be split off, all of which will have well over 60 stubs:

Grutness...wha? 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create any new Scotland stubs along lieutenancy area lines until we have had a debate at Categories for deletion. I will be nominating all the categories under Category:Scottish people by traditional county for deletion. We really cannot go about creating (duplicate!) categories and stubs based on political entities that became defunct over thirty years ago. Lieutenany areas are even worse, being purely ceremonial.--Mais oui! 09:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm - telling us that before the split started would have been better. Then again, ceremonial areas are the standard way of splitting these things, surely. Ceremonial counties were used for England, and though Scotland is an entirely separate entity it would make no sense to use a different system of splitting for there. The overwhelming majority of the Scotland geo-stubs refer to lieutenancy area rather than unitary authority, too. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Russian-hist-stub

{{Russian-hist-stub}} should be renamed to {{Russia-hist-stub}}, according to the stub naming conventions, shouldn't it? Note that Russian-hist-stub redirects to {{Russian-history-stub}} - I think they should both be redirected to Russia-hist-stub. At the very least, I think one redirect is in order to make Russia-hist-stub workable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. Ill make the redirect but go to WP:SFD and follow the instructions at the top of the page becuase the old names arent good ones so could be deleted BL kiss the lizard 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stubs

The Radio stubs are currently a slight bit of a mess, so I'm proposing a bot of a reorganization. This has some parts that will need to go through SfD, but the form in which the SfD is proposed will depend upon how this proposal is resolved.

We currently have:

I suggest we do the following:

  1. Create a new stub {{radio-show-stub}} & Category:Radio show stubs.
  2. Adopt the {{radio-station-stub}} template and give it a new category Category:Radio station stubs.
  3. Do an SfD on Category:Radio programme stubs and replace it with a Category:Radio stubs as the category that {{radio-stub}} feeds into.
  4. Do an SfD on {{AM-stub}} and {{AM-stub}} to simply delete them.

The reason I have for proceeding as I suggest is two fold.

  1. It avoids the program/programme problem.
  2. it makes it easier for us to be sure we've done all the necessary null edits.

So what do you all think? Caerwine 19:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good idea. I have only one problem, but perhaps it's just me. When I see {{radio-show-stub}}, I immediately think of entertainment broadcastings. According to Princeton University's WordNet 2.1, a show is "a social event involving a public performance or entertainment." For me, this excludes talk shows and radio documentaries. Perhaps a native anglophone could tell me a bit more about this? Aecis 10:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is a talk show not a show? More generally, at least in the States, when in comes to tv and radio, show and program are simply synonyms. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
7.a. A radio or television program.

Program does have the advantage of being less ambiguous when the words tv or radio aren't stuck in front, but that isn't a problem in this case. Caerwine 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EastEnders stubs

I hereby propose Category:EastEnders stubs and Template:EastEndersStub --4836.03 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • a bit late since it's already been created, had its category name changed, been discovered by us and added to the discoveries page, been discussed there for several days, had the template's name changed as per our naming guidelines, had all its articles re-stubbed to the new name, and had the old name proposed for deletion. Proposal of new stubs is meant to occur a week before the creation of the stub type. At this stage it's more a case of watching it to see how much it gets used. if it's heavily used, or if there's a dedicated WikiProject, then it's less likely to be proposed for deletion. So... is there a WikiProject, and are there over 60 stubs on EastEnders? Grutness...wha? 07:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More England-geo-stub splittage

Just did a tally, and got 

    25 Isle of Wight
    30 Bristol
    38 Herefordshire
    52 Bedfordshire
    52 Tyne and Wear
    62 Worcestershire
    65 Rutland
    66 Oxfordshire
    73 Warwickshire
    81 Hertfordshire
    89 Cheshire
   105 Suffolk

This makes Template:Cheshire-geo-stub and Template:Suffolk-geo-stub clear candidates. Some of these are unlikely to ever be worth splitting out though - Isle of Wight and Bristol. Rutland looks big here, but that's because it has pretty much 100% coverage now. What do we go once England-geo-stub is just cluttered by a handful of these tiny counties? Morwen - Talk 18:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could have saved you some work here, because I did first thing this morning (given that I'd just finished Scotland, it seemed logical). And the figures I got were slightly different. Also, we've been splitting at 75 for English counties - which, according to my figures puts Suffolk (92), Cheshire (89), Hertfordshire (81) and Warwickshire (75) at or over threshold, so I'd go for those four. As to where do we go, most of the others are filling up rapidly (there were some 102 new stubs created for these counties in the last two weeks). Bristol is likely to be the only problem, and it might well be posible to merge that one into either Gloucestershire or Somerset. the previous count and is now up to 25 - and still has plenty of stubs that can be made. Tyne and wear was like that until recently, and is now well up the list. I'd definitely support {{Suffolk-geo-stub}}, {{Cheshire-geo-stub}}, {{Hertfordshire-geo-stub}} and {{Warwickshire-geo-stub}} for now (especially since one of them is my birth county :) Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've loaded up the geo lists with what needs to be moved where. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah to hell with it - I relent. If anyone wants to split off some of the others, I'll add details of Oxford, Rutland, and Worcester to the page as well. That will give people something more to do if they feel like it :) All three of them are now over 65 stubs anyway (68, 69, and 67 respectively). Grutness...wha? 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock stub

I don't seem to be able to find any stubs catagorys for rocks-are they just under a more scientific name? If they are, I suggust a stub with a more simple name, such as Template:Rock-Stub--Akako|☎ 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the music genre or "large pebbles"? Aecis 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the plural's being used, I suspect Akako is looking for mineral-stub Grutness...wha? 05:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we do have some articles about "rock formations", great notable boulders. I don't think those deserve a stub, though.--Pharos 21:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those ones would be geo-stubs, anyway. So it's {{geo-stub}} for rock formations, and {{mineral-stub}} for types of rock. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that {{geo-stub}} is about geography, while rock formations fall under geology. Aecis 10:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. There is {{geology-stub}}, but any rock formation big enough for a wikipedia article is almost certainly regardable as a geographic feature (e.g., Ayers Rock) Grutness...wha? 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London-struct-stub

Two months ago, Grutness more or less proposed {{London-struct-stub}}. Nothing was done with this however. So I would like to repropose this template. According to a google search, there are about 170 stub articles about buildings and structures in London in {{UK-struct-stub}}. Aecis 20:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well spotted - a Scotland-struct-stub mght also be worthwhile, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what about NYC-struct-stub (approx. 100 articles)? Aecis 16:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of NYC-stub, I could go with that.--Pharos 10:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{London-struct-stub}}, {{Scotland-struct-stub}}, and {{NYC-struct-stub}} all created. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wales-bio-stub

I would like to propose {{Wales-bio-stub}} and Category:Welsh people stubs). I have done a head count of 60+ articles, which can be found on my talk page: Proposal for Welsh bio stub. There are plenty more at Category:Welsh people by occupation in the individual subcategories. I have tried to find more Welsh people, to move from the much overburdened "British bio stub" section, but in many cases, there simply is not enough information in them/or I have been unable to read the hundreds of individual articles one by one. --MacRusgail 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. Splitting by occupation (or other cause of notability) is probably ultimately the way to get the parent category down in size, but double-stubbing on both axes is perfectly reasonable, too. BTW, can we review the "no more than two stub-tags" policy? It's becoming both increasingly unworkable, and more honoured-in-the-breach. I seem to recall it was even in the first instance more popular with policy-drafters than actual stub-sorters... Alai 22:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a good point about the two stub policy. What happens if someone is a polymath AND comes from some small country/region such as Wales that is unlikely to have the likes of say, "Welsh-botanist-stub", but which is substantial enough to have bio-stubs (IMHO)? Our hypothetical person could be a botanist, hymn writer (i.e. musician and poet), actor and Welsh to boot. --MacRusgail 16:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japan-seiyu-stub Japan-voice-actor-stub

I started going through {{Japan-bio-stub}} to move some of them into the subcats, and about half-way through the A's, I noticed that of the 15 or so that I had changed, a good 80% were for Seiyu, or voice actors. I'd like to propose {{Japan-seiyu-stub}} under {{Japan-actor-stub}}. There are about 360 articles in Category:Japanese voice actors, and if I had to guess, most of them would still be at stub level. Neier 23:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... though would Japan-voiceactor-stub be better, given the name of the parent category? Grutness...wha? 23:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely must be at Japan-voice-actor-stub, or some variant, given the perm category name, and the name of the "third parent", the stub type, {{voice-actor-stub}}. Common English names, and what not. Alai 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'll go with Japan-voice-actor-stub in accordance with the third parent that Alai pointed out. Neier 03:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedians by Nationality

I've just made an American comedians stub, I'd like to propose that, and maybe British, Australian, Canadain, Japanese, German, French, etc.--Hailey 22:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientific journals

Our new stub sorter user: Chemturion has pointed out to me that we don't have any splits of {{mag-stub}}, and that scientific journals could probably do with their own stub. I agree, and will go one further, suggesting that both {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}} are probably long overdue. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we could spilt the magazine into to two main stub catagories, {{journal-stub}} (for industry and professional periodicals) and the current {{mag-stub}} (for consumer magazines) and then catagorize further from there. In the journal stub we would have such things as {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}} and in the consumer mag stub we would have such thing as {{culture-mag-stub}} (for things like People and US Weekly) and {{tech-mag-stub}} (for things like PC Magazine, Macword, and PopSi.) Chemturion 06:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{music-mag-stub}} would be good too BL kiss the lizard 07:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above are logical as categories, certainly. "Journal-stub" I'd be especially keen to see for the sake of clarity of description. But do they all hit 'threshold'? Support 'em as and when. Alai 22:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, we could start by splitting it into mag and journal, and see how the numbers look from there... Grutness...wha? 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about {{journal-stub}} as being clear enough from the stub name as being different from {{mag-stub}}. To me a journal is a magazine and vice versa. I'll grant that refereed periodicals include "Journal" in their name more often than not, but the distiction is just too ambiguous for me to like basing stub names on it. {{sci-mag-stub}} and {{med-mag-stub}} are just as clear as {{sci-journal-stub}} and {{med-journal-stub}}, so I don't see the need to try to draw a confusing distinction between two synonyms for stub names. Caerwine 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose -mag- variant names. "Journal" may sometimes be used as a synonym for "magazine" (though not really in these parts), but "magazine" is not a synonym for "journal". Smooshing together "scientific magazines" (like say, New Scientist) with actual journals would be much more confusing than any possible ambiguity between the two terms, which can in any case be made explicit on the category page. Alai 05:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that there's a fairly clear distinction between magazines and journals. The only grey areas would be things like popular science magazines (e.g., SciAm, NewSci), and I'd veer towards putting those under sci-journal-stub simply for the sake of keeping science periodicals in one place. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that; they're not grey at all. A peer-reviewed journal is a well-defined type of periodical, and the subject that's covered is irrelevant to its definition. Scientific American, at least, is definitely a science magazine, and not a journal. -- SCZenz 08:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And thus we see the nub of the problem. I think we all agree that there is a clear distinction between peer-reviewed periodicals and non-peer-reviewed periodicals, the problem is can we make that distinction unambiguously without resorting to a lengthy stub name such as {{peer-review-periodical-stub}}. I happen to read a "journal" six days a week, but it's the Wall Street Journal. At the very least I'd like to see the proposed stub text and the category name in this case. For example:
{{journal-stub}}
This article about a peer-reviewed journal is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Category:Peer-reviewed journal stubs
This category is for stub articles relating to peer-reviewed journals. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them.
To add an article to this category, use {{journal-stub}} instead of {{stub}}.
This is clearly a case where we need to discuss more than just the name of the stub template before we start creating. Caerwine 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, The Wall Street Journal isn't a magazine, either... But I'm happy to stipulate to Caerwine's caveats, or any reasonable variant thereon. (Mea culpa, I tend to be lax about including category names in proposals (and then on occasion, have ended up thinking, "hrm, hang on...", seven days or so later). And this is probably unwise, as it's the categories that are the real pain to change.) Alai 17:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Europe geo stubs needed

After scanning through the Europe geography stubs category it shows we need more stub templates:

  • Andorra-geo-stub
  • luxembourg-geo-stub
  • latvia-gea-stub
  • macedonia-geo-stub
  • liechtenstein-ge-stub (possibly lich-geo-stub)
  • cyprus-geo-stub (possibly divided into two owned parts)
  • gibraltar-geo-stub
  • monaco-geo-stub
  • moldova-geo-stub

There maybe more but most of the stubs buildings up in the Europe geography category are for these countries. - (Erebus555 11:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No, it doesn't show that at all. What it shows is that there are still nine countries in Europe which don't have enough stubs for separate categories. The same can be said for three countries in South America, three in Central America, about two dozen in the Caribbean, 30 or so in Africa, about six in Asia (plus more in Southeast Asia and the Middle East) and about 15 in Oceania. At the last tally, two weeks ago, of the ones you mention only Luxembourg had over 30 stubs, and it only had 34. Since a minimum of 60 stubs are needed for a new category, none of these are yet at the point of being made. What's the point of making a Monaco-geo-stub when there are only three stubs and unlikely ever to be more than that? What's more, Cyprus doesn't have two parts (it has three - about 8% of the island is officially still British), and according to our naming guidelines Liechtenstein wouldn't be abbreviated. Grutness...wha? 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Followup) Apologies if my previous comment sounded harsh - we do keep track of all countries without stubs, though, and regularly count the stubs about once a fortnight. As a matter of fact, someone has made a lot of Luxembourg stubs in the last two weeks, so that has now been proposed. it's quite likely that Cyprus will reach threshold sometime soon, too. Oh, and the only one you forgot was San Marino, BTW. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austro-Hungary}}

If we have an Ottoman Empire stub, what about the Austro-Hungary stub? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, do we have 60 Austro-Hungary stubs? As a state, Austria-Hungary lasted a fairly short period of time and many of its potential stubs can be assigned either to the proposed (and likely to be soon created) {{Austria-hist-stub}} or a possible but not yet ready for proposing {{Hungary-hist-stub}}. In any case, to cover as wide a period of time as would be feasible, I'd prefer {{Habsburg-stub}} & Category:Habsburg Empire stub so that it could cover events before 1867. Caerwine 07:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, November 2005

Splits of Euro-myth-stub

On WP:WSS/T, I saw that {{Euro-myth-stub}} is in need of splitting. The first two splits that come to mind are {{Rome-myth-stub}} or {{Roman-myth-stub}} (approx. 100 to 110 articles) and {{celt-myth-stub}} (approx. 70 to 80 articles). Aecis 10:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good to me. Obviously this is a case where we don't necessarily want to precisely follow the usual geo-splits, and will have to play it by ear. But these seem pretty clearly defined, give or take the overlap within the "classical" ___domain. Alai 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's best to go by European civilisations. In Asia, the large, splittable civilisations roughly equal the countries (China and Japan). In Europe, I see five large, reasonably well-defined civilisations: the Romans, the Greeks, the Celts, the Germanics and the Slavs. Of these, the first and third seem to have enough articles for a separate stub category. I think it's best to wait and see how many stubs remain of the other mythologies. Note: Category:European mythology distinguishes 21 mythologies in Europe, from Albanian to Welsh. Aecis 20:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{geneticist-stub}}

I propose a stub category for both geneticists and evolutionary biologists. The two should share a cat because many geneticists are also evolutionary biologists and vice versa. I counted them and there were 70 (+- a few) stubs. --Carabinieri 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{paleontologist-stub}}; {{ornithologist-stub}}; {{entomologist-stub}}

I counted through the {{zoologist-stub}}s and got the following results:

  • Ornithologists 105 stubs
  • Entomologists 106 stubs
  • Paleontologists 54 stubs

I think the ornithologists and entomologists are pretty obvious splits. I hope you will turn a blind eye to the fact that the paleontologists are just under the 60 stub minimum, because this will get rid of a lot of double stubbing, since they are currently all stubbed as both {{zoologist-stub}} and {{geologist-stub}}. Also, I only counted the ones that were previously marked as {{biologist-stub}}s, which I then re-stubbed them as zoologists; so there could be more paleontologists under {{geologist-stub}}.--Carabinieri 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article the American spelling is paleontology and the British spelling is palaeontology. I support a redirect.--Carabinieri 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So are you all okay with creating the cat, even though 60 stub minimum hasn't been reached?--Carabinieri 09:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting scientists by nationality

I would like to propose splitting {{scientist-stub}}s by nationality. This will reduce the size of some nation-stub categories that really need it (US and UK, especially) and reduce some double-stubbing (although not much, since most scientists are marked more specifically, {{biologist-stub}}, eg)). While sorting {{biologist-stub}}s I noticed that the following will definately be viable:

I just wanted to ask your opinion on whether you would support splitting scientists by nationality in principle before counting them. But I think the nations mentioned above will definately have enough stubs.--Carabinieri 12:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objections, having previously propsed a {{Germany-scientist-stub}}, which due to other stuff on my plate and the novelty thereof, I haven't fast-tracked. Caerwine 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More {{sportbio-stub}} splits

I'm going through gradually restubbing Category:Sportspeople stubs, and it's clear that some more sports can be split off in addition to the dozen or so that have already been created. The most obvious would be {{triathlete-stub}}, which would have over 100 stubs, according to a quick Google. I'll do some more checking before I propose any others. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going from the other direction, there certainly enough stubs in {{tennis-stub}} and {{autoracing-stub}} to justify a {{tennisbio-stub}} and a {{autoracingbio-stub}}. Probably also enough for a {{skiingbio-stub}}, but without a {{skiing-stub}} to quick count the double stubs, I can't be sure. Caerwine 17:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symbol stubs + {{anthem-stub}} & Category:Anthem stubs

{{Anthem-stub}} & Category:Anthem stubs have been on the discovery page since August. A recent push by me has brough the number of stubs there from under 10 to over 40. That's still a little light, but my effort was not comprehensive and Category:Anthem stubs can help trim the overlarge (11 pages at present) Category:Song stubs by functioning as a sub category. Along with Category:Flag stubs and the proposed Category:Heraldry stubs, I'd like to put Category:Anthem stubs in a for now templateless Category:Symbol stubs. I'n not certain if there enough stubs to justify a {{symbol-stub}}, but there's enough of a relationship here to justify having them feed into a common category, and we do have other templateless stub categories, so I'm not breaking new ground here. Caerwine 21:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austria-hist-stub}} + {{Ireland-hist-stub}}

Neither stub is needed to help split an overlarge category, but they both would get over 60 stubs and help to thin out {{Euro-hist-stub}} so as to make it easier to see if a {{HolyRomanEmpire-stub}} or a {{ByzantineEmpire-stub}} would be viable. Caerwine 22:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Luxembourg-geo-stub}}

Someone's been busy making stub articles on all the municipalities in Luxembourg - which means its gone from 34 stubs two weeks ago to 112 now. This one suddenly looks a lot more viable! Grutness...wha? 11:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mindmatrix 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that! In other words... I support. - (Erebus555 16:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It's all loaded up at my stub-splitting page. If there's no objections I'll start on it shortly. (A bit early, but it's not a controversial one). Grutness...wha? 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sweet siren song of geo-stub sorting beckoned me, and I answered. :-) Mindmatrix 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{canada-abp-stub}}

Aboriginal peoples in Canada are an ethnic group comprised of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Currently articles in these subjects meriting a stub notice most often use canada-stub and ethno-stub, and org-stub may apply too. Creating an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub notice would encompass all of these subjects, and help to depopulate the very large ethno-stub and canada-stub categories. A list of where this proposed stub would be appropriate is as follows:

  1. Aamjiwnaang First Nation
  2. Aboriginal Multi-Media Society
  3. Aboriginal Peoples Television Network
  4. Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation
  5. Anishinaabe
  6. Burnt Church First Nation
  7. Carcross/Tagish First Nation
  8. Champagne and Aishihik First Nations
  9. Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
  10. Council of the Haida Nation
  11. Elsipogtog First Nation
  12. Eskasoni First Nation
  13. First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun
  14. Fort Folly First Nation
  15. Gordon First Nation
  16. Hesquiaht First Nation
  17. Hivernants
  18. Huron-Wendat Nation
  19. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
  20. Kainai Nation
  21. Kashechewan First Nation
  22. Kluane First Nation
  23. Kwanlin Dün First Nation
  24. Kwicksutaineuk First Nation
  25. Liard River First Nation
  26. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation
  27. Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
  28. Magnetawan First Nation
  29. Métis Flag
  30. Métis in Alberta
  31. Métis Nation - Saskatchewan
  32. Métis Nation of Alberta
  33. Métis Population Betterment Act
  34. Mushuau Innu First Nation
  35. National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation
  36. Nitassinan
  37. Numbered Treaties
  38. Nuxálk Nation
  39. Ojibways of Pic River
  40. One Arrow First Nation
  41. Opaskwayak Cree Nation
  42. Pehdzeh Ki First Nation
  43. Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation
  44. Ross River Dena Council
  45. Sagkeeng First Nation
  46. SAY (magazine)
  47. Selkirk First Nation
  48. Siksika Nation
  49. Snuneymuxw First Nation
  50. Sunchild First Nation
  51. Ta'an Kwach'an Council
  52. Teslin Tlingit Council
  53. Thunderchild First Nation
  54. Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations
  55. Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation
  56. T'sou-ke Nation
  57. Tsuu T'ina Nation
  58. Union of Ontario Indians
  59. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation
  60. Waywayseecappo First Nation
  61. White River First Nation
  62. Whitefish Lake First Nation
  63. Yukon Land Claims

--Kurieeto 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A {{Canada-ethno-stub}} might well be useful. I would, however, emphatically recommend NOT using the name you suggested, since the term "abo" is extremely insulting in some countries (in Australia, it's on par with terms like "nigger"). Grutness...wha? 00:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for pointing that out Grutness! Because {{canada-ab-stub}} has Alberta connotations and we may need a stub for articles relating to that province one day, I'm changing my proposal to {{canada-abp-stub}} instead of {{canada-abo-stub}}. Kurieeto 00:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support the creation of the stub, though {{canada-abp-stub}} seems awkward. Is there something better we could use? Mindmatrix 00:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Canada-aborig-stub}}, mebbe? Would {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} be too long? The Tom 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Canada-ap-stub}} is an option too. Now that I look at it, we already have {{Quebec-stub}}, so I assume we'll be going straight to {{Alberta-stub}} if it's necessary at some point in the future. That frees up {{Canada-ab-stub}}. Kurieeto 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no to {{Canada-ab-stub}} solely on the grounds that it's ambiguous; someone will surely use it for an Alberta-related article. I was going to propose {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} too, but didn't do so because it could be used for non-biographical articles. In retrospect, this shouldn't matter, since we aren't restricting this to just biographical articles anyway. Right? Also, {{Canada-ap-stub}} isn't bad, but isn't very clear either; my preference right now is {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}. Mindmatrix 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}}, but would propose and prefer {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} for consistency in capitalization of the term. See also Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Capitalization. Kurieeto 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a (slightly more general) {{Canada-ethno-stub}}; this also keeps a consistent naming with it's parent. Also, {{Canada-aboriginal-stub}} might get used on biographical articles about aboriginal peoples, which is a rather different scope then is proposed. None of the abbreviations seem particularly desirable or intuitive to me. --Mairi 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. The reason I suggested -ethno- in the first place is that we have a precedent for it, and - being slightly more general - it will take more stubs. I don't think the First Nation stubs would be drowned out by ones for groups like the Acadiens, which could theoretically also take that stub. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have both? There are over 600 First Nations in Canada, and most of them will likely need the proposed {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} at some point in their existance. This is without considering the possibility for growth in Métis and Inuit stub articles. If we can I'd like to avoid the manual renaming of many {{Canada-ethno-stub}}s to {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}s that would be likely at some point in the future. Kurieeto 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just leave it at the one stub for now (canada-ethno-stub). It can always be split later if that's needed, but there's no evidence yet that it would be. Grutness...wha? 07:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proposed stub notice for a {{canada-ethno-stub}}? I see the following options as possible:
  This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
  This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
  This ethnic groups of Canada-related article is a stub.
I remain in favour of an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub notice. Great lengths have been gone to on Wikipedia to avoid describing or implying Aboriginal peoples in Canada as belonging to Canada, as advised against by the Government of Canada [2]. Actions on Wikipedia taken in this manner have been the renaming of Category:Canadian First Nations to Category:First Nations and the renaming of Aboriginal peoples of Canada to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This policy has been extended to all Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples, see the renaming of Indigenous people of Brazil to Indigenous peoples in Brazil. These renamings required a vote, or were otherwise not objected to. I'm very hesitant to describe Aboriginal peoples as an ethnic group being "of Canada", thereby implying belonging, especially when a need has been demonstrated for an option like:
 This Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related article is a stub.
Other possible names for an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub are: {{Aboriginal-canada-stub}}, {{Aboriginal-can-stub}}, or {{abcan-ethno-stub}}. This would begin a new syntax for Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples stubs that one day may be needed, such as for Category:Indigenous peoples and/or its subcategories. Kurieeto 13:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not {{Canada-indiginous-stub}}? aboriginal isnt pc everywhere and could cause complaints. And it could say something like

> This article about indiginous peoples in Canada is a stub.

BL kiss the lizard 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I think the best option is to go for {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, which follows {{ethno-stub}}. And while we're at it, what about {{Africa-ethno-stub}}? {{Ethno-stub}} could do with splitting, and Africa seems to be closest to being viable. Aecis praatpaal 21:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Aboriginal' is the correct name for all aspects of Canadian indigenous people, the name agreed to by all parties. I would fully support {{canada-abp-stub}}. Radagast 17:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-abp-is definitely not a desireable abbreviation as it is not self explanitory. I could live with either a {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, {{Canada-indiginous-stub}}, or a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} with a capital "A". Caerwine 21:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A week has passed since a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada was first proposed and I wanted to summarize the comments received so far so that a stub could be created soon. Please also note that when the word "indiginous" has been used above I have changed it to "indigenous" below, because indigenous is the spelling used on Wikipedia, indiginous is not.
Individuals who have expressed support for a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada, though we haven't completely established the syntax of the name of that stub yet, are: Myself, Mindmatrix, The Tom, Radagast, and Caerwine (Caerwine being supportive of either Canada-ethno, Canada-indigenous, or Canada-Aboriginal).
Individuals who have expressed support for {{Canada-ethno-stub}}: Grutness, Mairi, Aecis, and Caerwine (Caerwine for reasons above).
Individuals supportive of {{Canada-indigenous-stub}}: BL, Caerwine (Caerwine as above).
So, including Caerwine's position, an Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub has the support of 5 people, Canada-ethno has the support of 4 people, and Canada-indigenous has the support of 2 people. How should we proceed? Continue open debate until one stub establishes a clearer majority? Create both an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub and a Canada-ethno stub? Or proceed solely with the creation of the stub that has the support of the (bare) majority? In the case of the latter debate will need to be re-focused onto what the exact syntax of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada stub should be. Kurieeto 14:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we have to continue discussing this proposal. The proposal itself doesn't seem to face any objections, but there are some differences of opinion as to what the template should be called. I think we need to find some common ground before proceeding with creating the stubs. It might be wise to drop Canada-indigenous-stub, although I don't know whether BL and Caerwine agree with me on this one. I think we should focus on Canada-ethno-stub and what I will call "an aboriginal stub". Aecis praatpaal 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that dropping Canada-indigenous-stub from consideration would be useful in focusing our discussion. Of those in favour of {{Canada-ethno-stub}}, would any be in favour of the simultaneous creation of {{Canada-ethno-stub}} and {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}? I would support this dual-stub creation. For those against this creation of two stubs, at what number of {{Canada-ethno-stub}} articles would you support the creation of a split-off {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}? Kurieeto 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And/or, at what number of articles where an Aboriginal peoples in Canada-stub would be the most specific and appropriate would you support its creation? Currently 63 have been listed. Kurieeto 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with the Canada-Aboriginal-stub idea. But if that can't get consensus, what about using the phrase First Nations? As in, This article related to First Nations in Canada is a stub. This seems to be an acceptable terminology to Indian Affairs Canada ([http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mand_e.pdf PDF of IANAC's mandate). Do note that the term is not seen to include Inuit peoples. -Joshuapaquin 01:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that IANAC seems to like "Aboriginal" more, consider this press release with five uses of the word. -Joshuapaquin 01:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Aboriginal" isn't blocking consensus currently. The roadblock is debate regarding if a {{Canada-ethno-stub}} should be created before a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}}, with a {{Canada-Aboriginal-stub}} being broken off once there is an excess of articles in {{Canada-ethno-stub}}. The roadblock would remain if the scope of the proposed stub was reduced to just the First Nations. Kurieeto 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also favour -ethno-, for consistency of naming (hence increasing the chances of people using it, and using it correctly) and inclusivity. Opposed to -abp-, excessively cryptic. Alai 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{reli-bio-stub}} splits

This was pretty much agreed to while discussing the {{bishop-stub}} proposal, but I thought I'd re-propose it before creating since these are pretty major changes. I propose splitting {{reli-bio-stub}} as follows:

--Carabinieri 19:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, as long as {{theologist-stub}} also gets renamed to {{theologian-stub}} --Mairi 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and pope-stubs waiting to be changed from papal-stub at sfd. BL kiss the lizard 04:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's happening by bot right now, and will be done within an hour ;) Mairi 05:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification: {{theologian-stub}} will be a split of {{academic-bio-stub}} and {{reli-bio-stub}}; {{Christian-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} will be splits of {{theologian-stub}} and {{Christianity-bio-stub}} and {{Islam-bio-stub}} respectively, OK?--Carabinieri 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India History Stubs

Hi, we really need a listing of history stubs related to India. I do not know what tpo do about it, but please can we have such a category? There are a whole lot of articles that would fall into such a category.

  • Hi whoever you are. At the moment theyre listed in Category:Asian history stubs and marked Asia-hist-stub. a seperate one would be india-hist-stub or perhaps SAsia-hist-stub since stubs from other countries would overlap like Maynma and Pakistan. it would be useful too i think. BL kiss the lizard 02:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A {{SAsia-hist-stub}} would probably be the more useful, given the overlapping nature of the history of all of what was British India - extending from Baluchistan to the Andaman Sea. it might be a very useful one to add to the list, too. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are enough obvious stubs for a {{India-hist-stub}} in the overlarge India stubs category that I would not mind creating that directly. However, I do ask whoever does the resorting to be sure that it really is India related and not South Asia related. I suspect that are quite a few stubs misstubbed as {{India-stub}} instead of {{SAsia-stub}}, mainly due to the fact that {{SAsia-stub}} hasn't been around that long, so people went for the best substitute available while it wasn't available. Caerwine 05:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a

 

This South Asian history-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

and a

    

This Indian history-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

as a daughter of it for stubs that relate specifically to India?--Carabinieri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The last of England

Finally, we are in a position to knock England-geo-stub on the head completely. I've been making a few Isle of Wight stubs, and it looks like some other people have been doing the same with some of the other counties. The count for the five remaining un-subcategorised counties is now:

  • Herefordshire 83
  • Bedfordshire 73
  • Isle of Wight 67
  • Tyne & Wear 55
  • Bristol 31

Bristol's pretty thin, but all the others are passable at least, and Herefordshire has finally moved into the respectable category. I'd say we can easily make a {{Herefordshire-geo-stub}}, {{Bedfordshire-geo-stub}}, and {{IsleofWight-geo-stub}} (or maybe {{Wight-geo-stub}}), and it wouldn't be too big a stretch to make the last two, {{TyneandWear-geo-stub}} (or{{TyneWear-geo-stub}}) and {{Bristol-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Think we may as well make the last two too. Tyne&Wear is expanded atm as I was just finishing off all its parishes, and am now hunting for untagged stubs. Morwen - Talk 07:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - the lists are up in the usual place. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done. The numbers are 83, 72, 67, 75, and 31. England-geo-stub is left with six articles, all of which are multi-county. This should be it for England splitting for a while, although at some point it might be worth splitting {{Yorkshire-geo-stub}} (currently about 500). Morwen - Talk 12:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sanmarino-stub}}

I propose to create template/category for San Marino related stubs. There are near 20 such stubs, and I don't know with which stub should I mark them. --Monkbel 12:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those could use {{Euro-stub}} - or {{Euro-geo-stub}} if they're for places. The standard threshold for new stub types is atleast 60 such stubs. --Mairi 19:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll use these. --Monkbel 18:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality stub

File:FourWaysToKnow.jpg

This stub will be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirituality. The initial statement of scope for this project is, “This WikiProject aims to promote better coordination, content distribution, balance and cross-referencing among pages covering topics of spirituality, as well as pages on topics that can be compared or contrasted with spirituality.”

When I think about Wikipedia, I notice four fundamental "ways of knowing" strongly expressed here - science, philosophy, religion and spirituality. By strengthening the spirituality-related pages, my hope is that this spirituality project can go a long way to help show how these ways of knowing interrelate with each other, not just emphasize their differences.

The Spirituality portal also is a part of this project. One portal box contains a list of "Things you can do," including work on spirituality-related stubs. By its very nature as indicated in the diagram, many of the spirituality stubs will overlap with other stubs. However, spirituality has a distinct perspective that merits balanced representation to maintain NPOV across this wide range of Wikipedia articles. The use of the spirituality stub will help ensure NPOV early on in the article writing process. — RichardRDFtalk 19:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub types or normally proposed before being created. However, since there's a wikiproject I don't see a problem with the stub. I would've prefered the category be named Category:Spirituality stubs tho. --Mairi 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice this project until I saw the "invisible" comment note in the project template page. By that time, I already had created Template:Spirituality-stub and Category:Spirituality-related stubs, sorry! I only added the template to one article as a test. I used "Category:Spirituality-related stubs" to be analogous with List of Spirituality-related topics and Glossary of spirituality-related terms. Maybe I should have used “Template:Spirituality-related-stub” to be consistent, but I always can change that if this proposal is approved. — RichardRDFtalk 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the analogy should be with the main catagory, so unless thats called Category:Spirituality-related the stub cat shouldnt be Category:Spirituality-related stubs. BL kiss the lizard 23:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, changing the cat to Category:Spirituality stubs is fine with me. — RichardRDFtalk 01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the note about the use of the word "-related" in stub categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines#Foo stubs or Foo-related stubs.3F. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced, Category:Spirituality stubs it is! :-) — RichardRDFtalk 03:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've changed it over. The older Category:Spirituality-related stubs can be speedied once it's been eempty for 24 hours. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sportsclub-stub}}

For a few weeks now, we've got {{footyclub-stub}}. Category:Sports stubs contains many more stub articles about sports clubs (mostly basketball, ice hockey and volleyball), which leads me to propose {{sportsclub-stub}}/Category:Sports club stubs. Aecis praatpaal 21:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sports stubs are divided by sport, and this type doesn't fit into this scheme. But I think it's a good idea to have {{basketball-club-stub}}, {{icehockey-club-stub}} etc, provided there is enough stubs. Conscious 10:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{icehockey-team-stub}} already exists. Stub articles about basketball clubs can be double-stubbed sport-club-stub and hoops-stub if there are not enough articles about basketball clubs/teams for a separate template/category. Same goes for volleyball-stub (which doesn't seem to exist yet), which can be used in combination with sport-club-stub for teams/clubs, and with sport-bio-stub for players, until there are enough stubs for a separate template/category. Aecis praatpaal 11:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Singular please! I'd prefer {{sport-club-stub}} or {{sportclub-stub}} with Category:Sport club stubs. Caerwine 06:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{South American history stubs}}

Hello. I am proposing this new subcategory to add to the history stubs. Alternatively, if anyone out there feels like it may not be worth it due to a small number of current candidates, we can change it to {{Latin American history stubs}}, to include history stubs from Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America as well. Regards --Andres C. 22:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that would be {{SouthAm-hist-stub}} btw. BL kiss the lizard 23:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auto organizations and auto components

-moved from october to november, as it was suggested after nov.1st. Bjelleklang - talk 22:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Will also add {{auto-org-stub}} and {{comp-auto-stub}} to sort auto-related organizations (not manufacturers), and auto-related components, for example engines, valvetypes etc. Have sorted most of the stubs beginning with a and b, and have at least 10 stubs for both of the abovementioned subcats. Bjelleklang - talk 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{auto-org-stub}} and {{auto-comp-stub}} would be more in line with our existing naming standards, and are a more natural word order. Auto-comp-stub is abit of an ambiguous abbreviation, as there's quite a few other things it could stand for, including company. --Mairi 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{auto-part-stub}} instead of {{auto-comp-stub}}? --Alynna 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{auto-part-stub}} sounds fine for me, the same goes for {{auto-org-stub}}. I'm not very experienced with these kind of things, so I appreciate your input! Bjelleklang - talk 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the automobile company stub is {{auto-corp-stub}} as the corporation stubs actually include all the ways of organizing a company. The abiguity that a {{auto-comp-stub}} might raise is minor, but since I happen to thing {{auto-part-stub}} is the better choice anyway ... Caerwine 06:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects to {{auto-part-stub}} and {{auto-org-stub}} by tuesday 8th., I'll go ahead and create them. Bjelleklang - talk 23:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness had already brought it up, but I would like to propose it again: there seem to be more than enough sports-related organizations in Category:Sports stubs to create {{sport-org-stub}} or {{sports-org-stub}} and Category:Sports organization stubs. Aecis praatpaal 22:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singlar please! I'd prefer {{sport-org-stub}} and Category:Sport organization stubs. Caerwine 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people

I just finished culling the voice actors, writers, and politicians from Category:Japanese people stubs. Based on the remaining 750 that I didn't sort, I think that musicians, artists, and historical figures (grouping present-day military with prior periods) would each merit a subcat. A weak case could be made for film producers, but it would become a strong case if they could be lumped in with video game developers. (That is a tenuous connection; but together, it should make it through the 60 person threshold). An even weaker case can be made for yakuza and other crime figures. There are several sports figures, scientists, and businessmen; but none of those struck me as being particularly overpopulated. All of this is just my gut feeling, based on the number of times it seemed like I saw a particular type of article.

So, my proposals are for

  • {{Japan-musician-stub}} (bands, enka, computer video game songs, the whole gamut) -- some could be double-stubbed, especially cvg
  • {{Japan-artist-stub}} (manga, traditional art) -- a few more double-stubs
  • {{Japan-history-bio-stub}} (or some other name)
  • If someone wants to recommend a name for a game developer/film producer stub, I would go along with that, but I can't come up with anything...

Any comments? Neier 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for {{Japan-history-bio-stub}}, that idea has been vetoed in the past, and gven that Category:Japanese people stubs is now no longer overlarge, it hardly seems the place for that innovation. 4 pages is not overlarge. The musician and artist categories are in the midst of discussions of how to split them, and those should get resolved first. The cats large, but not so large as to break new ground with, in my opinion. Caerwine 20:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also reject all nation-history-bio-stubs because the only possible definition of such a stub would be that the subject of the stub is either dead or lived before a certain time, which is a senseless way to split stub IMO. The only exception to this should be time eras of specific nations, which are easily definable and have a large number of stubs which definately relate to anouther but hard to categorize otherwise. Nazi Germany is the best example I can think of right now. I think a {{Nazi-Germany-bio-stub}} might actually make sense because there are numerous stubs about concentration camp guards and such, which can't really be categorized as {{mil-bio-stub}} or as {{crime-bio-stub}} (as crime fighters (many of these people were formally policemen) or as criminals). For SS-people a double-stubbing as {{Germany-mil-bio-stub}} and {{Nazi-Germany-bio-stub}} could make sense. If someone thinks this cat makes sense I would welcome such a proposal but don't feel strongly enough about it to propose it myself.--Carabinieri 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about not having the word history in there (it would be hist anyway, if used, but it's needlessly confusing). Note that - as far as Carabinieri's points are concerned - we have a Nazi-stub for Nazi germany (it is specified in the template that it's not for neo-nazi groups), so nazi-bio-stub would probably re a reasonable enough name, as long as the same specification is made there. As far as the history stub for japan is concerned, almost all of those would be easily covered by Japan-writer-stub, Japan-artist-stub, Japan-royal-stub and Japan-mil-bio-stub, some of which already exist or are proposed, and others of which may be viable. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Musician stubs

I've started sorting Category:Musician stubs with the three new instrument based stubs. At present it looks like it'll go down from 23 pages to 11 or 12 when I'm done with the sorting. I'd like to go ahead and propose four other stubs.

I don't have an exact count, but I'm confident that all four will have more than 60 stubs. Caerwine 00:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be the {{songwriter-stub}} / {{singer-songwriter-stub}} hierarchy?
That's the idea. Category:Songwriter stubs would also be a child of Category:Writer stubs for writing the words in the songs. Caerwine 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Bruce1ee 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hawaii-geo-stub}}

Propose {{Hawaii-geo-stub}} for use at Western US geography stubs. There are at least 49 articles that are currently tagged with {{US-west-geo-stub}} and an additional four I found in {{Hawaii-stub}}. Also, there are probably quite a few unsorted in {{US-geo-stub}}. Many of these articles currently have both US-west-geo-stub and Hawaii-stub. I am suggesting that this can condense those two stubs into one, as well as help to further categorize the Hawaii geography articles into a better stub than US-west-geo-stub. Let me know if there are any problems with this. --MattWright (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Aina Haina, Hawaii
  2. Akaka Falls State Park
  3. Area code 808
  4. Banzai Pipeline
  5. Bell stone
  6. Camp Smith
  7. Ford Island
  8. Fort Shafter
  9. Foster Botanical Garden
  10. Haiku, Hawaii
  11. Hawaiian islands channels
  12. Hilina Slump
  13. Hookipa
  14. Ka Lae
  15. Kaimu, Hawaii
  16. Kaimuki, Hawaii
  17. Kalapana, Hawaii
  18. Kalaupapa, Hawaii
  19. Kalihi
  20. Kamuela, Hawaii
  21. Kaula
  22. Ka'u
  23. Kea'iwa Heiau State Recreation Area
  24. Kipahulu
  25. Kohala, Hawaii
  26. Koke'e State Park
  27. Kula, Hawaii
  28. Lanikai
  29. Manana
  30. Manoa
  31. Maro Reef
  32. Mokolea Rock
  33. Mount Waialeale
  34. Na Mokulua
  35. North Shore (Oahu)
  36. Pacific Missile Range Facility
  37. Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex
  38. Pala'au State Park
  39. Pauoa, Hawaii
  40. Puna, Hawaii
  41. Punaluu Black Sand Beach
  42. Puu Kukui
  43. Tantalus (Oahu)
  44. Waihee, Hawaii
  45. Wailua Falls
  46. Waimea Bay, Hawaii
  47. Waimea Canyon State Park
  48. Waimea River (Hawaii)
  49. West Maui Mountains
  50. Hawaiian islands channels
  51. Molokini
  52. Lava Tree State Monument
  53. Hapuna Beach State Recreation Area
POSTPONE. You missed three of them, according to my list. Anyone who has worked at WP:WSS for a while knows that US states are automatically proposed when they reach 65 stubs and are counted every two weeks or so. Hawaii is getting very close, but all US states will be re-assessed as soon as the current influx from the now defunct State Park-stub is sorted. Hawaii is one of the most likely to get its own stub at that time (along with Maryland, Tennessee and Montana). Grutness...wha? 23:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. I had no idea about that requirement or the automation involved. Just saw an article I was monitoring get retagged from State Park-stub and thought a Hawaii one may be appropriate. I withdraw the proposal. On another note, how will it be handled with the Hawaii-stub? Will a US-west-geo and Hawaii-stub be replaced with a single Hawaii-geo-stub or would it have a Hawaii-geo and a Hawaii stub? Just curious. --MattWright (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's very organised - the two biggest groups of stubs in wikipedia are bio-stubs and geo-stubs, so it hass pretty rigorously worked out. As to what will happen with Hawaii-stub, it will almost certainly remain, since it's not supposed to be for geographical items - its for things like Hawaiian government, culture, history, and the like. Some US state non-geography stub categories have been deleted because they were little-used and had no WikiProject associated with them. That is unlikely to happen in Hawaii's case becaus there is a WikiProject. Category:Hawaii geography stubs would be a subcategory of both Category:Western US geography stubs and Category:Hawaii-related stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(update) Hawaii ended up with 62 stubs, but a quick atlas-hunt and three new stubs from me has brought it up to 65, so I'll "re-propose" it below with the two other states that reached 65 after incorporating all the state park stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{dads-army-stub}}

I have worked very hard in starting to create pages for Dads Army Episodes and believe there should be a subcategorie of BBC stubs for Dads Army. These are that fit the tag:

  1. Dads Army
  2. The Man and the Hour
  3. Museum Piece
  4. Command Decision
  5. The Enemy Within the Gates
  6. The Showing Up of Corporal Jones
  7. Shooting Pains
  8. Operation Kilt
  9. The Battle of Godfrey's Cottage
  10. The Loneliness of the Long Distance Walker
  11. Sgt. Wilson's Little Secret
  12. A Stripe for Frazer
  13. Under Fire

Many other pages will be added to the list as I create them. All these pages will benfit and it will encourage people to expand the pages. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We usually like to see quite a few more stubs before creating a stub type. We do make an exception for WikiProjects but you'll need to set up a WikiProject related to the Dad's Army series first, which probably would be a good idea if you're interested in getting assistance with the task, regardless of whether or not the stub type is created. I'll leave it to people who actually saw the series to decide whether it's encyclopedic or not. If the stub is worth creating, {{DadsArmy-stub}} and Category:Dad's Army stubs would fit our usual naming conventions. Caerwine 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is encyclopaedic - one of the best British comedy series ever (not just my comment - it's officially so). I don't see it as having enough stubs for its own category, though. However, (Don't panic! Don't panic!) the TV stubs need a serious workout and reorganisation, and I can see use for a separate UK-tv-comedy-stub and US-tv-comedy-stub. If those went ahead, the Dad's Army ones could easily be marked with the first of those two. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even more musician stubs

As I go through the sorting I see two more possibilities that should be able to get over 60 stubs each.

  1. {{electronic-musician-stub}} which would also go along in name form with the recently added {{UK-electronic-band-stub}} in form.
  2. {{plucked-musician-stub}} which would take the banjoists, lute players, harpists, sitar players, mandolinists, etc who play string instruments that would normally be plucked but aren't guitarists. I'd also really like to see a better name, tho it does parralle that of {{bowed-musician-stub}}.

I realise that there is some overlap between {{electronic-musician-stub}} and {{DJ-stub}} on the one hand and between {{electronic-musician-stub}} and {{keyboardist-stub}} on the other hand, but it's sort of a continum there with quite a few of the makers of electronic music not really identifiable as either DJ's or keyboardists. Anyway, I really would appreciate comments here on both of these. Caerwine 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(snigger) Those names need work. I'm a guitarist, but a "plucked musician"? I haven't been plucked in a while... Grutness...wha? 23:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{plucked-string-musician-stub}} or {{string-plucking-musician-stub}} or even {{string-pluckers-stub}} (don't try this one after a few drinks). I agree the {{electronic-musician-stub}} / {{keyboardist-stub}} / {{DJ-stub}} boundary is sometimes blurred, but perhaps the solution is to (where necessary) simply use 2 or 3 of these stubs together. --Bruce1ee 06:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

Im surprised that this stubs arent already here. I feel that manny should see that there is a obvious need for them. I yes, please do tell so i wont need to go through all articles and past them here.

  1. {{Shia-stub}} - Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild
  2. {{Sunni-stub}} - Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild
  3. {{Islam-book-stub}} - Islam book stub, books related to Islam


  1. The Khalifas who took the right way (book) - Sunni book


--Striver 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a proposal earlier on the page for an {{Islam-bio-stub}}, {{Islam-theologian-stub}} and {{Islam-clergy-stub}} (they'll be created shortly) which would remove the need for one for scholars, I'd think. If a stub for books is necessary (we ought to atleast have a {{reli-book-stub}}), it ought to be called {{Islam-book-stub}}. --Mairi 03:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Striver 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, it's not at all obvious to me that any of of those three are are needed, when considered in isolation. Assuming that the ratio of Shia and Sunni stubs to the Islam stubs will be roughly equivalent to the ratio between those in the Shia Islam and Sunni Islam categories to those in the Islam category then neither category will come close to the 60 stub recommended minimum at this time. About the only good reason I can see for establishing the Shia and Sunni stubs is the associated WikiProjects, but they are sub projects with 1 and 2 fully active participants respectively. In short, I'm neutral on those two stubs at the moment. I can see the need for a {{reli-book-stub}} and that should give us a basis for judging the need for an {{Islam-book-stub}} (or any other sub type) in the future. Caerwine 05:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement Park

There is a stub for amusement park rides, but there is not a stub for amusement parks themselves. The closest one I have found that fits the article I have made is the one for tourism, but I do not believe it fits very well. I need to find some more examples, as for the moment I only have the one (which I have made), but I am fairly certain they exist as there is a good amount of amusement parks and such in America and the world that have stubs.

If anyone else can find an amusement park stub, it would be appreciated if you added to my list. ^o^

I will search for some more amusement park stubs in my leisure time to hopefully expand the list.

--Ihmhi 02:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ride-stub is used for both rides AND the parks as it says on the template. the parks are often double-stubbed with geo-stubs. BL kiss the lizard 04:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting {{Ireland-geo-stub}} ?

This is quite large now with ~700 stubs. Nowhere near enough to split by county, but enough to split by province. I haven't counted but I should be surprised if {{Leinster-geo-stub}}, {{Munster-geo-stub}} and {{Connacht-geo-stub}} weren't viable. An {{Ulster-geo-stub}} is more problematic, as six of the nine counties of Ulster are already covered by {{NorthernIreland-geo-stub}}. We could possibly merge Connacht and the rump Ulster, like Ireland does for European Parliament elections? Morwen - Talk 09:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd prefer if this was left until there was enough for the county split. There are only 26 counties IIRC, so some of them may already be splittable. Even just taking the Dublin one out might just lower things considerably (sadly, my ancestral Roscommon may be one of the least splittable). Grutness...wha? 10:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Well, counting stubs starting A-B, I get 41 Connacht, 29 Leinster, 41 Munster, and 9 rump-Ulster. The largest single counties were Mayo (16), and Cork (21). Morwen - Talk 10:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the distributions the same over all 700 stubs, that would give you about 120 from Cork and 95 from Mayo - both definitely splittable. Those two alone would reduce the main category by nearly 30%. Grutness...wha? 12:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Right, I've more definite figures now, having counted them all (discarding non-obvious and multiples). Including only counties with >50 counted stubs, we get

  • Connacht : 186, including
    • Galway 58
    • Mayo 59
  • Leinster : 187, including
    • Dublin 75
  • Munster : 194, including
    • Cork 65
    • Kerry 50
  • Rump Ulster : 47

Co Dublin can be split out certainly. However, if it is agreed that we can't split by province, I won't advocate any more splitting.

Morwen - Talk 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With 65 stubs, Cork can be split as well, since we have been using that as a cut-off for a lot of geo-stub splits. Give the others time - they are close enough that they’ll soon be over 65, especially given how quickly the number of stubs is growing. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The legacy of the state park stub-pile

All the former state park stubs are now assigned according to where they are. And that means that three more US states have now reached a 65-stub threshold (well, I had to push one of them with three newly-minted stubs...). They are:

Given that some of you are impatient little geo-stub splitters (Hi, Mindmatrix :), I'll load up my stub-splitting page right away... Grutness...wha? 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the templates and categories for those impatient ones. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing Moe from The Simpsons, "I may be a geo-stub sorter, and I may be impatient - what was that third thing you said?" By the way, Grutness, does this make you the siren? :-) Mindmatrix 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, well... I'm not the least impatient when it comes to geo-stub splitting either. As to being the siren, though... :) Grutness...wha? 01:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airline stubs

Category:Airline stubs has approx 700 articles now, so I've taken the liberty of suggesting the following subcategories: {{euro-airline-stub}} for european airlines, {{afr-airline-stub}} for african airlines, {{amer-airline-stub}} for airlines based in America (or a possible split to {{samer-airline-stub}} and {{namer-airline-stub}} for North/South-America), {{asian-airline-stub}} for airlines based in Asia, and {{oce-airline-stub}} for Oceania-based airlines. Bjelleklang - talk 14:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me! And thanks for the correction as well! Bjelleklang - talk 16:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One minor thought - Am-airline-stub could be a little confusing. We rarely have stubs for the Americas as a whole, though I doubt there'd be enough for CentralAm or Caribbean. The others are all fine, though. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about sorting according to continents, but as Central America and the Caribbean doesn't have too many airlines, I was thinking more of adding them to the South America category. Thus we'll end up with
As North America (and the US. in particular) has a large number of airlines, I think it would be just as good to sort directly into North/South, rather than doing this at a later date.
Anyway, unless there is any objections by friday nov. 18th., I'll go ahead and create the categories, stub templates, and begin the sorting. Bjelleklang - talk 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would object to Central America and the Caribbean being added to South America. Although culturally there is some overlap between the regions, I think it is geographically incorrect. What I would propose is having NorthAm-airline-stub include Central America and the Caribbean, with US-airline-stub as a daughter. Aecis praatpaal 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. But not so sure that Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada has enough airline-stubs to have it's own category, so I'm not so sure if we should have both a {{US-airline-stub}} as well as a {{NorthAm-airline-stub}} (including the Caribbean and Central Am.). Bjelleklang - talk 19:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft stubs

Category:Aircraft stubs consist of more than 900 articles, and would like to sort according to country of manufacture, bu am open to other structures if anyone has anything better. Bjelleklang - talk 14:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another possibility would be to:
  1. Expand {{bomber-stub}} into a {{mil-aero-stub}} to also cover fighters.
  2. Add {{airship-stub}} to deal with lighter than air aircraft.
  3. Add {{rotorcraft-stub}} to deal with helicopters, gyrocopters and tilt rotor planes.
  4. Add {{jet-aero-stub}} to deal with jet airplanes. Strangely enough this is the only one of my three proposals that doesn't seem to already have a parallel main category as there is no Category:Jet aircraft.

I have no real preference in this case for a propulsion based, versus nation based scheme, but I doubt if there enough aero-stubs to support both. Caerwine 16:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at combination of the two would be too much, but I don't think that a propulsion-based sorting would be best, as some of the sub categories would be extremely large ({{rotorcraft-stub}} and {{jet-aero-stub}}). A better idea than both these two might to sort by manufacturer... Bjelleklang - talk 16:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...or at least by the nationality of the manufacturer. Another option, one which I'd probably favour, is to do the same as with cars - split by era, using important dates in Aircraft history as cutoffs (e.g., Alcock & Brown, Chuck Yeagar, Concorde) and using the same terminology as for cars. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that era would be the best way to go, as there isn't really any tradition of 'veteran,' 'brass,' 'vintage' or 'classic' aircraft (that I'm aware of) unlike cars, so I just think that would tend to confuse people. I think we would be better off by sorting either on manufacturer or type (with several subcats for some), although not both. Bjelleklang - talk 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While there would be some overlap, {{biplane-stub}} (which would also include triplanes and the like) and {{jet-aero-stub}} would be a defacto era sorting. It's doubtful that a manufacturer based spilt would yield groups large enough for stub categories. Caerwine 02:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still not too convinced about this, especially not about {{jet-aero-stub}}, as this would get quite large. Have another suggestion though, what about the following:
Although I'm open for just about anything, I think it's important to split up some categories such as the proposed {{jet-aero-stub}} as it would encompass quite a lot of aircraft. Bjelleklang - talk 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to propose {{mil-aero-stub}} myself, subject to it being of sensible size (in either direction). I'd suggest it doesn't replace {{bomber-stub}}, but supercat it. Several of the other proposals seems less clear-cut. Alai 17:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree to this; {{bomber-stub}} should be replaced by {{Milcombat-aero-stub}} (or under another name), as it currently only holds 21 stubs. I can agree to other alternatives regarding the category names, but believe that there should be a category for single-engined aircraft (or General Aviation), commuter aircraft, smaller jets, and as bigger jets. Bjelleklang - talk 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a {{mil-aero-stub}} would be too large, which I rather doubt, I would oppose splitting the stub into combat and supprt aircraft stubs given that there are quite a few craft that have served in both roles such as the C-130/AC-130, T-37/A-37, or the B-29/KB-29 to name the most notable ones.
I also don't like the proposed division of jets into three rather arbitrary stubs, especially since most of the jet aircraft articles are not stubs. The writers of aerocruft have been very busy writing good and complete articles about modern military and passenger aircraft. Each of the aircraft mentioned in the three jet sub types above as examples have lengthy non-stub articles. I'd actually be more worried whether we actually have 60 stubs about jet aircraft than whether we should have three separate stubs.
Finally, I don't like the proposed {{misc-aero-stub}}. Isn't that just simply {{aero-stub}}? Caerwine 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{soundtrack-stub}}

I think this could lighten up the burdens of the current album-stub a bit. It could be something like "This soundtrack- or musical score -related article is a stub." Sylph 09:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separate anime and manga stubs

It seems odd to only have one stub for both anime and manga. While I agree that frequently they go together (in which case the more general stub can be used) there are plenty of stubs which are just anime or manga. Currently there are more than five pages of anime-manga stubs, the largest stub category in the literary genre. I suggest that we create {{anime-stub}} and {{manga-stub}}, although that would mean changing all the current anime-manga stubs from {{anime-stub}} to something else (like anime-manga), so we might have to use another name, such as {{anime-show-stub}}, which would be a pity as it would be more confusing. Story Weaver 14:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{mammal-stub}}

This currently has 543 members. I could see splitting this further into {{rodent-stub}}, {{marine-mammal-stub}}, {{marsupial-stub}} and {{ungulate-stub}}.--Pharos 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

534 actually ;) (well, 533+the template). Do you have any numbers to support the suggested new stub types? --TheParanoidOne 20:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice enough articles on marsupials or marine mammals (but didn't look too closely for articles in those particular categories). I did see plenty of articles to warrant a {{rodent-stub}}, since every stub article on a rat, mouse, or vole is a rodent article. Rodents do make up about 30-40% of all living mammal species. An {{ungulate-stub}} might help, too, since there are lots of stubs on animals with hooves. I'd propose considering a {{bat-stub}} as well, since bats (along with rodents) constitute the lion's share of living mammal species. -- EncycloPetey 03:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the first 200 stubs and the groups so far that have at least 20 stubs (aka 10%) are:
  • Rodent (37) - as expected.
  • Horse (23) - though this encompasses a number of individual horses (mostly racehorses).
  • Extinct mammal (20) - a poor classification choice on my part, perhaps. Many of these could go into categories for currently existing animal groups, but some of them can't.
--TheParanoidOne 15:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the racehorses be moved to {{horseracing-stub}}? (Those articles are after all about individual mammals, not about mammal species. If we would include individual mammals in this category, we should add everyone in {{bio-stub}} and in every single one of its daughters.) Aecis praatpaal 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know that existed. In that case, yes. That makes sense. Anyway, once I've gone through the lot, I'll do a revised count. --TheParanoidOne 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{ecology-stub}}

This stub would greatly relieve the stress on {{biology-stub}}. I found more than 20 potential articles for the new stub in just the first 200 articles listed with biology stubs. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already had one of these... (checks list) no, you're right, we haven't, and it would probably be quite useful. Would you see Category:Sustainability stubs being a subcategory of it, or is that too different a subject? Grutness...wha? 03:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would work as a subcategory, given which articles currently are marked with that stub. -- EncycloPetey 06:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Caucasus-stub}}, {{Caucasus-bio-stub}}

These sort of got discussed last month with the Armenian stubs, but I'd like to reopen the discussion before creating them. Right now, where to put the Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian stubs is sort of up in the air. These three stubs would have both the relevant European and Middle East categories as parents. Caerwine 16:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In principle I support this proposal, but I would like to know whether "the Caucasus" in this stub includes e.g. Chechnya and Ossetia, or only Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Aecis praatpaal 00:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's mainly intended to give a parent for Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan because of the fact that they have no X-stub or X-bio-stub and because they fit into both Europe and the Middle East they could otherwise potentially end up in either or both depending upon the stubber's whim. Chechnya and North Ossetia would both take Russian stubs at present so while they might swamped by the primary Russian stubs, they wouldn't get scattered. De jure, South Ossetia is part of Georgia and thus would go in these two stubs. There is no intention on my part to inlcude Russia's Southern Federal District in these stubs. (Note: with slightly over 600 Russian geography stubs and only 7 Federal Districts, the Russia geo stubs should be splitible if we want to; just don't ask me to do it.) If TransCaucasus or SouthCaucasus would make these clearer or more palatible, I have no objection to so modifying the names. 05:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

{{percussionist-stub}}

Not all percussionists are drummers, but between percussionists who are in Musician stubs but don't qualify for Drummer stubs and those in Drummer stubs who are either misfiled or play percussion instruments that aren't drums, there should be enough stubs to justify this stub to help thin out the Musician stubs even further. Caerwine 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Bjelleklang - talk 19:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Football Bio Stubs

Right now, there are about 1118 articles in American football biography stubs. That sounds like a large, large, large number which could be cut down considerably if we split the stub. Currently, the description is "this biographical article on an american football player, coach, or other figure is a stub." Well, wouldnt an american football player stub, an american football coach stub, and an american football personailty stub make sense? I'm not sure what images we could use (all this copyright documentation stuff scares me), but I DO feel that there should be a stub-split. Thoughts?jfg284 16:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no requirement that stub messages have icons, but if they do, they can't be fair use images. Caerwine 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Caerwine. Ther's no need for an icon. As to the split itself, splitting out the coaches and the personalities might reduce things a little, but the main problem's probably likely to remain - the players category will be big. Since I doubt a geographical split would be useful on this one, with players moving from team to team, perhaps this one could be split by era? A pre-WWII American football-player stub might reduce some of the load, for instance, and is likely to be a specialist area that certain editors would know far more about than others. A short, snappy name for it would be needed, though, since Pre-WWII-Amfootball-player-bio-stub is just a tad longwinded. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could also sort by league in which the players were most active (e.g. af2-bio-stub, nifl-bio-stub, aifl-bio-stub, etc.), or by franchise (e.g. packers-bio-stub, nygiants-bio-stub). I personally am more inclined towards the latter. Aecis praatpaal 01:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shows how little I know about American Football - I'd assumed that players transferred from club to club, like in other sports (which would make separating by franchise very difficult, I would think). Grutness...wha? 08:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They certainly do. I believe it used to be more common for a player to spend his whole career in a single club, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the norm these days. League sounds broadly feasible to me: though wouldn't that leave a pretty huge NFL-player-stub category, all the same? (Just guessing.) Alai 08:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They indeed do, but I assume there are many players who are notable as a player of one particular club. I see no reason to believe that American football is any different from football/soccer. George Best will always be associated with Manchester United. The same goes for sir Stanley Matthews and Stoke City. Michael Jordan will always be associated with the Chicago Bulls. Kobe Bryant will always be associated with the LA Lakers. Aecis praatpaal 10:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sir Stan with Blackpool, I hope you mean! Which gives some indication as to why this could be a problem. Played who have moved between several clubs could get many stub templates or even be subject to edit wars. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is, there certainly are players that will be associated with more than one, and players who wont be associated with any. I'd say that the best way with the players would be to go position: first break it into offensive player / defensive player, they after that into offensive backfield, offensive line, defensive line, and secondary, if need be. basically, i'm saying position would be the best.

{{map-stub}}

Category:Geographical term stubs has always been a grab-bag assortment of different geography stubs that weren’t about actual places, and it now has close to 350 stubs. I’d like to propose {{map-stub}} or {{cartography-stub}} for stubs relating to the science of cartography, and types of map. This should easily reach the 60 or 70 stub mark. Ideally, I’d also like to propose {{Paleo-geo-stub}} (or {{Palaeo-geo-stub}}) for prehistoric land-masses, lakes, rivers, and the like, but I’m not sure that has enough stubs yet (although a lot of them may be marked geology-stub). Grutness...wha? 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the articles I've added to that stub have boiled down to:
Bar (Foo)
A Bar is a type of administrative subdivision used in Foo.

Those stubs wouldn't fit under either a {{map-stub}} or {{cartography-stub}} obviously enough, but I wouldn't object to a {{cartography-stub}}, since I've wanted that for other articles, too few and uncounted for me to propose it myself. Caerwine 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of things like: Azimuthal equidistant projection, Cantino planisphere, Cardinal directions, Cartogram, Choropleth map, Contour interval, Digital raster graphic, Dilution of precision (GPS), Dual Independent Map Encoding, Elevation, European Terrestrial Reference System 1989, Dual naming, Fix (position), GLOBCOVER, Gauss-Krüger coordinate system, Geocomputation, Geodetic system, etc etc etc. Mind you, a {{geo-subdivision-stub}} or similar might be very useful, too. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{polyhedron-stub}}

I'm proposing a Category:Polyhedron stubs, with template {{polyhedron-stub}}. This would be a subcategory of Category:Geometry stubs, which at the last count was between 400 and 500 articles. This category would cover specific types of Polyhedron, e.g. Augmented sphenocorona, in the 3D sense. This should reduce the size of the Geometry stubs category quite a lot, and make it easier to see what other types of articles we have in there. I can find about 50 likely candidates on the first page, just by looking at the article name. Silverfish 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of {{Business-bio-stub}}

Discussion at Category talk:Business biography stubs. Courtland 17:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speaking of business-bio-stub: there are now exactly 1,100 articles in that category. Is it about time to create daughters? I was thinking of sorting by nationality, but would it be feasible to sort by industry? Aecis praatpaal 19:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC) (PS. Or perhaps by corporation, like {{microsoft-bio-stub}}? (Provided there are enough articles ofcourse) 21:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Folklore stubs

I'd like to propose 2 folklore stubs. One would be a Category:Folklore stubs, with template {{folklore-stub}}. This would include all the nationality entries for folklore generally, as well as for folklorists. This category would come under literature (recognizing that much in the way of folklore is non-verbal, too, such as folk art). The second would be a sub-category called Category:Folktale stubs, with template {{folktale-stub}} and would come under the category Category: Story stubs. Bruxism 20:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how many folklore and folktale stubs there are? (The threshold for stub templates/categories is usually 60 to 80 articles). I reckon there are quite a few in {{culture-stub}} and {{socio-stub}}, and perhaps even one or two in {{myth-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Songs stubs by categories

Like

 

This rock song-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

 

This country song-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

 

This blues song-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

 

This show tune-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


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. RJFJR 02:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Category:Strategy game stubs and listed both types in the wording. Now all the articles in Category:Puzzle game stubs just need null edits, so the categories will show them correctly. --Mairi 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's going on with this one, but the category looks very strange. It needs a serious fix-up! Grutness...wha? 06:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete madness! This template leads into a category called Category: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: {{Capcom-stub}}. {{Sega-stub}}. What is going on here? Grutness...wha? 05:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created properly by ADeveria (talk · contribs), as a result of the discussion on computer and video game stubs below. His template fed into Category:Strategy game stubs. CyberSkull (talk · contribs) erroneously edited the category to Category:Computer and video game stubs (presumably as a result of copy-pasting from {{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 Category:Strategy game stubs with Category:Puzzle game stubs and Category: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. Aecis 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
0.o I messed one up? Sorry, I was trying to standardize the coding style of the stubs for easier editing. I must have pasted the wrong thing in that stub then… Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Capcom-stub}} and {{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... --Mairi 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. With so many different stubs being discussed here, is it any wonder I forget a few? <:) Grutness...wha? 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of the stubs that I created have done any harm. They don't prevent anyone from adding to the genre-specific stubs. And as I've already proved, they can be easily populated. The only problem is that one has to have the time and determination to search high and low for stubby articles without a stubby notice. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*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

Proposed

So what do you think? Caerwine 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include-only for stub categories on stub templates

There are a few editors who keep changing categories on stub templates to include-only, sometimes with an explanatory note. I'd prefer to not use include-only, as it makes it more clear what category the template uses, and that a category does in fact have a template associated with it at present. If include-only is going to be used, I think there needs to be an explanatory note, so it's clear that there is a category and so it's possible to navigate between the template and the category. But something like consistency would be desirable either way. --Mairi 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm strongly against using include only, for exactly the reasons you say. It's very important for editors to know what category a stub template links to, and it's vital for us knowing when a stub type has been correctly created by having an associated category. Whenever I find a stub template that uses includeonly I convert it to the "normal" type. Luckily I've only ever spoted two or three of them - is it becoming more common? And should we have some note on the "how to" page (WP:STUB, IIRC) about it? Grutness...wha? 00:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What perhaps we could do is to use noinclude to get them to appear at the start of the list. I think that's the main thing people are reacting against - the ugliness of having the template appear in the middle of the 'T' section. I've tried this on Template:Rutland-geo-stub - and it works - the template appears at the start, but articles that use the template don't include the "|*" bit and so therefore stay ordered as before. Morwen - Talk 20:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=28300104"