Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 13 June 2005 (→{{tl|motorbike-stub}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

The page is at a tubby 183 kilobytes.

This page is for discussion on new or deleted stubs and their organization. For past discussions, consult the Archive Index.

Complete plain-text list of stub types

A complete list of stub-types (the one formerly at User:Grutness/Stubs) is now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types. It is an easy-loading page with links to the templates but doesn not have the templates themselves on the page. Please update it when new stubs are created! The order is not as per the new hierarchy or per the old hierarchy, but somewhere between the two. Any improvements to that are also welcomed. Grutness|hello?   08:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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 (~~~~).
  2. Find a good number of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:
    • currently be marked with stub;
    • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
    • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
    • not marked as a stub.
  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. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.

Proposals, March 2005

Actor of (Country) stubs

As pointed out, the Category:People stubs has gotten enormous, and now the Category:Actor stubs has grown to 6 pages (1000-1200 stubs). Instead of people sorting to the "general actor" category, we should probably start subdivisions to sort into. Sarah has already begun the Category:American_actor_stubs. Rather than proposing each country individually here, perhaps we can have a period of blanket approval for the creation of "Actor of (Country) stub" categories & templates ... provided that people add the new categories to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types around the time they create these. What do you think? Courtland 13:01, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Go for it, I'd say, along with a suggestion, based on my work at splitting up geo-stub. Although it may sound like a lot of work, it's worth making a small spreadsheet listing all the article names alongside what country the person comes from first. That does several things:
  1. It lets you know which countries really need a separate category
  2. It lets you see whether several countries can be easily grouped together (e.g., Africa-actor-stub, Balkans-actor-stub)
  3. It's very handy if you simply want to cut and paste the new template - you can do all of the articles relating to one country together.
  4. It enables you to roughly keep track of what (and how many) new articles appear.
Also a general comment - with both this and the bio-stubs, it's probably worth keeping the same country name or abbreviation as used in other stubs, rather than, say, having Bos-bio-stub for Bosnians and BiH-geo-stub for places in Bosnia. Not that I'd expect you'd need more than, say, US, UK, Canada, Japan, India, Australia, and Euro for actors anyway.... Grutness|hello?   07:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • After having collected ~180 items into the suggested spreadsheet (that takes me to the middle of the J's in Category:Actor stubs) the only new stub that seems justified is the {{UK-actor-stub}}, which will account for ~30% of those not yet moved out of Actor-stub (as far as I've gotten). Courtland 02:50, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • for a view of the distribution of Actor stubs that do not fit either US-actor-stub or UK-actor-stub see User:Ceyockey/Actor_stub_census. Courtland 03:44, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
    • Would a Template:Euro-actor-stub be appropriate? There seem to be enough of them - UK actor stubs could maybe be a subcategory of it. Other than that, Japan and Canada (the latter including Quebec) would be the only possible starters (remembering that a lot of bio-stubs may well be hidden actor-stubs). Grutness|hello?   07:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposals, April 2005

History stub sifting

Having started on the process of looking at history stubs, I can see several different ways to proceed which seem at odds with each other. There's sorting by period, by ___location, and by type of event/subject. Each of them has their merit, and there are some possibilities already clear in each type.

By period
  • {{Mediaeval-stub}} and {{WWII-stub}} both lap out as prime candidates here. Both would be well populated and would appeal to one type of editor.
  • These would fall in line with Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt quite well, although it could be argued that they are equally ___location stubs.
By ___location
By subject type
  • {{mediaeval-bio-stub}}, {{ancient-bio-stub}}, {{battle-stub}}, {{royalty-stub}}... all would be well populated
  • against this is the fact that bio-stubs need work separately. The listed bio-stub varieties could well be useful with that. I suspect that all of these could be part of a double-stubbing arrangement.
these don't seem to be at odds with each other, I don't see why they couldn't all be created. Really, the more semi-specific type stubs we have, the easier it will be to keep them down to a manageable size. *Kat* 06:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Possible schema

At the moment, I sway towards the following schema, although it's very tentative, and any thoughts and suggestions are very greatly welcomed. The following are all possibles, although only a few may be needed to reduce hist-stub to a reasonable size.

Any thoughts on any or all of these? Or is this all getting too complex? Grutness|hello?   00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after 24 hours of thought, I'm probably making it all too complex. Removing the bio-stubs and US-hist-stubs from history-stub will probably reduce it considerably anyway - after that I'll have a look through what's left over. However, two of these look like definite starters - {{UK-hist-stub}} and {{WWII-stub}} and - unless there's good reasons not to - I'll set about starting those in a few days' time. Grutness|hello?  

Three new historical stubs have been created (WWII, WWI, UK-hist) - see note here Grutness|hello?   00:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those history stub proposals seem like a good idea, and I support the creation of all of them, but I think that there is a need for more event-oriented stubs, such as {{battle stub}}. *Kat* 07:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Mm. Maybe. The reason I opted to divided it up by time and place rather than type of item is that I suspect that if you're loking for someone to edit articles on African battles, you're more likely to find that someone who knows about African history can do the task, rather than someone who knows about, say American Civil War battles. So it would make more sense to put battles into whatever area they relate to, rather than having a separate category just for battles (the same principle applies to treaties, which would be the other obvious thing to split off if we were going to split it that way). Also, if you split things by date or by place, you can cover pretty much everything, whereas if you split off battles and treaties and, say, discoveries and inventions, you'd be left with a lot of uncategorised history articles that might be harder to put somewhere useful. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2stub

Template:2stub found this stub... not linked or anything. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • seems to be an interesting attempt to get around double stubbing. I suspect it would be much harder to use in practice though; if the names of all the stub categories conformed to some pattern it might work, but it's hard enough remembering the names of all the stubs, let alone learning all the (often much more complex) category names! Erm... should this one be listed in this section, though? Grutness|hello?   05:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

{{rail-station-stub}}

Category:Rail stubs is getting pretty large. A significant fraction of the articles in there are about railway stations, so I'm thinking about adding a new subcategory of Category:Rail station stubs and an associated stub tag. Let me know if there are any objections. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What proportion of those stations are in London? A London-rail-stub might solve a lot of the problem, and save having a stub that cuts into the subcategories of struct-stub (it might well take things out of both UK-struct-stub and US-struct-stub as well as the main struct-stub category). Grutness|hello?   06:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's a lot of them from London proper (underground stations should be in LUL-stub anyway), although I think I see what you're saying in that separating them out geographically is probably a good idea since the structures stub category is as well. JYolkowski // talk 13:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about {{ukstation-stub}} and {{usstation-stub}} (and ones for other countries) to help people to find them from their countries. TAS 09:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that makes sense. I'll go with that unless there are any further objections. {{australiastation-stub}} is another big one. One more little thing, would it be better to have a dash between the country name and station in the template name or not? JYolkowski // talk 13:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason I was wondering about London is I came across 30 or 40 London rail (not tube) stations while going through UK-struct-stub, and there is now a London WikiProject. UK-station-stub would probably be a reasonable compromise though. With a dash, as in UK-geo-stub and UK-bio-stub. Note the capitals, too. As with US-geo-stub and US-bio-stub, the capitals are where they are in the name of the country. Grutness|hello?   11:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'll create US-station-stub, UK-station-stub and Australia-station-stub shortly. JYolkowski // talk 13:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually I didn't create the Australia one (yet) since there isn't an Australian structure stub category. I'll see how much I can get out of Category:Rail stubs first and then see whether I still need it. JYolkowski // talk 13:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I didn't make an aussie struct-stub category when I made the other two... I'll have a look at the generic struct-stubs sometime soon and see whether there are enough Australian ones for their own category. Grutness|hello?   22:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Update - not really. Only 20 Aussie structure stubs in the Struct-stub category. Then again, there are probably quite a number in Australia-geo-stub... Grutness...wha? 09:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased see the note below at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#proposing changing station about problems relating to the naming of these categories! Grutness...wha? 06:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{euro-royal-stub}}

This one was suggested after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting. For all those European Kings, Queens, Archdukes and the like that used to be in hist-stub but are now cluttering up bio-stub. There must be close on 500 of them, at a rough guess... Grutness|hello?   13:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Lots o' minor earls and dukes to sort. Putting them in one place would facilitate that.A2Kafir 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Plus, some people LOVE that stuff, and they might spend all day finishing the articles if they were all grouped in one place.A2Kafir

There is already the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, which is for UK royalty and peers, plus there is the {{peer-stub}}, along with Category:Peerage stubs (as a subcategory of Category:British people stubs). That category currently has 180 articles. The main page for the WikiProject doesn't look like much, but the talk page is very active.

I was surprised that there was no Royalty WikiProject to cover all the other royalty, although Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) seems to be the major place for discussion of all things royal. I was thinking that there might be enough royalty stubs to actually have stubs for a few countries like France, but with only 149 articles in Category:French people stubs, it doesn't look like that is true (unless someone starts translating a bunch of French royalty stubs from the French Wikipedia).

Without a specific Royalty WikiProject, perhaps the articles are best left as bio-stubs under their respective countries. BlankVerse ∅ 06:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Bio-stub is very large (far larger than Category:Stub!) Making making a euro-royal subcategory of it will at least take a huge number out of the main list and put them where people who do know about such things can get at them. In any case, there's nothing wroing with double stubbing, in the same way that, say a Japanese writer might get both writer-stub and the new Japan-bio-stub. If it turns out that a lot of the royals are from one particular country, then a subcat would be no problem. As to france-bio, remember that it's still a fairly new subdivision, and quite a few of us are still so busy sorting the mainstub category that we simply haven't got round to bio-stub yet (it's next...)! Grutness|hello?   06:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Grutness. This would be a good way to empty out {{bio-stub}} of minor royals of any nation (there are more than any of us can imagine; all those little German states,....). Maybe it should be just {{royal-stub}} to cover worldwide royals (or pretenders). Then a royal can be double-tagged to indicate nationality. A2Kafir 23:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Euro-royal-stub}} has been created. I'm not entirely convinced by the wording, but it was the best I could come up with to cover both the royals themselves and Dukes, Counts and the like. Grutness|hello?   14:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and euro-royal-stub has been changed to a redirect! See notes below under Euro-noble-stub. Grutness...wha? 03:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Proposals, May 2005

{{Hallucinogen-stub}}

just created it, but i'll wait for approval before using it. For stubs relating to hallucinogens following the creation of the WikiProject on Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics, a sort-of descendant project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs. --Heah 22:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No-one seems to have objected, so go ahead! :) Grutness...wha? 03:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation proposal: Lutheran-stub

  • There are many of us working on various articles related to Lutheranism, such as instutions, former church bodies, synods, etc. The christianity-stub is too broad. There is a Roman Catholic stub. As Lutherans are the largest Protestant group in the world and also the oldest (depending on how you count the followers of Hus) this would be very helpful. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm - that category probably does need breaking down a little - but would a more generic protestant-stub be a better way to go about this? Or is that still too broad a division? (Come to think of it, are there also enough for a separate orthodox-stub?) Grutness...wha? 07:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lutherans do not always like the term "Protestant", as it is often used generically and lumps Lutherans in with groups like Pentecostalists and Baptists with which we have little in common. In fact, a recent trend is Lutherans rejecting the idea of Protestantism and instead considering themselves as a reform group within the catholic Church (little c). It would be more appropriate to have a separate stub for Lutherans articles. EdwinHJ | Talk 20:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, since there don't seem to have been any objections, I've created {{Lutheran-stub}}. Enjoy! Grutness...wha? 04:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{world-royal-stub}} (*created as {{Noble-stub}})

There are plenty of stubs on non-European royalty and nobility, in bio-stub and elsewhere. Why should there only be euro-royal-stub? Alternatively, this could just be called royal-stub.--Pharos 18:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

royal-stub would probably be a better name, to keep it in line with other stubs. We don't have world-bio-stub or world-geo-stub, and if necessary this could later be broken down in exactly the same format as other region related stubs (Africa-royal-stub, Japan-royal-stub, etc). Grutness...wha? 08:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with your reasoning, "world" is unnecessary. I see that User:Oven Fresh has created a {{monarch-stub}} and made {{royal-stub}} as a redirect to it, but I'm not so sure about the lack of naming consistency with euro-royal-stub.--Pharos 15:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch-stub would be a subcategory of royal-stub, if such a thing was needed (notall royalty are monarchs - Prince Charles and Princess Anne are obvious counter-examples). Please also note discussion below on the differences between royals and nobles, and problems the concatenation of the two may cause. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given the clear problems that have developed with royal-stubs in general, perhaps this should be named {{noble-stub}}. It's probably also worth considering whether monarch-stub still seems such a good idea... Grutness...wha? 05:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; let's rename this to noble-stub and and get rid of monarch-stub. I think the wording and definition should be along the lines of "monarch, royal or noble" - all three should be combined in this and the more specific euro-noble-stub etc.--Pharos 08:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Update: I've created {{noble-stub}}, and {{monarch-stub}} is now a redirect to it. Once it's emptied, I'll move Category:Monarch stubs to cfd. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs, unite

Ok there are god knows how many country stubs. I can do all of that with one template, use it with care.

{{GCS|Cuba}}:Template:GCS

{{GenericCountryStub|France}}:Template:GenericCountryStub

Update

Minor issue with countries that have a different name for images and different name for their articles. (only a few has this problem)

{{GCSD|Us|United States}}:Template:GCSD

{{GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}}:Template:GenericCountryStubDetail --Cool Cat My Talk 03:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bear in mind that this is just a geo stub. It could be altered slighty to meet other stubs such as Biographies etc... --Cool Cat My Talk 21:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please no - this new stub is already causing problems (as listed below under "newly discovered templates") and will be more work in the long run than the current system, and more work for the editors on an item by item basis. Let's take the three examples you've listed above. Under the current system, a regular editor keeps "{{-geo-stub}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean", "France" or "US". Under the proposed system, s/he keeps "{{GCS}}" ready to paste, and types either "Caribbean|Cuba", "France" or "US|United States". It only takes a few articles for the work to have greatly increased. The casual editor still has to know the names of the categories, so it won't improve their lot either (in fact, they too will have to type more). And every time a new geo-stub category is created, a little more tweaking of the system will be required. What's worse, this template would ideally be on all the geostubs - a distinct case of template/server overload. And all of them would have an icon, leading to even more server trouble. Grutness|hello?   01:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A need for genre specific book stubs

{{fantasy-book-stub}} *created*

{{scifi-book-stub}}*created as {{sf-book-stub}} - {{nonfiction-book-stub}} also created*


I believe you mean {{sf-book-stub}}, to fit in with the current {{sf-stub}} (especially since many people "in the know" see the term "sci-fi" as derogatory). I'd agree that fantasy, sf, and children's books probably all do warrant separate subcategories, as does non-fiction (maybe {{fact-book-stub}}?) Grutness...wha? 07:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that {{nonfiction-book-stub}} would probably be more intuitive. the phrase "fact book" brings to mind almanacs, and DYK type books.*Kat* 03:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm. You're right. I was thinking of length for ease of use, but nonfiction-book-stub would be better. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{nonfic-stub}} as a redirect? *Kat*
I'll leave the redirect for now (the less of them the better. really), but I will add nonfiction-book-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{euro-noble-stub}}

At the suggestion of Grutness, I've wandered over here to explain the mess I've made and why I did it. I feel that "euro-royal-stub" should not be used to encompass European nobility, as the two terms do not refer to the same people. I understand the desire to avoid conflation, but nobles are not royals and they really don't belong in the same category. I understand that they appear similar, and that those of you doing the re-stubbing (which is a wonderful and valuable effort) might have difficulty telling the difference. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask that the distinction be made. I'd also like to suggest that you poke Adam Bishop about which monarchs, historically, should be called "European" monarchs. He has some concerns. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, certainly all nobles are not royals. The point is that these should be under a common rubric; many stub markers (for example rocket-stub which deals with space exploration in general and bank-stub, which deals with all sorts of financial institutions) are not limited to a strict definition of the word in their title. If we artificially divide what is essentially one topic here, then this only unnecessarily increases the complexity of the stub system and sets an unfortunate precedent for overparsing and multiplication of stub markers.
Would euro-noble-stub be preferable as a catch-all marker? Not all monarchs have been nobles before their accession, but certainly by many definitions the institution of monarchy itself is part of (indeed the paramount institution of) the system of nobility.--Pharos 03:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be far superior, yes. I grant that splitting the categories would be laborious. Most monarchs that I know of were noble by some definition. I would be more than content with that. Mackensen (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, may I propose making {{euro-royal-stub}} a redirect to {{euro-noble-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 08:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any problem with that. Also, two related things: members of the British nobility (the peerage) have thir own place ({{peer-stub}}), but we don't put people with life peerages there, as they really aren't nobles. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. good point. Actually, it would make sense if {{peer-stub}} was renamed to {{UK-noble-stub}}, with peer-stub as a redirect. It would be more consistent naming. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; these related stub types should be named (and defined) as consistently as possible.--Pharos 08:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: {{Euro-royal-stub}} now redirects to {{Euro-noble-stub}}, and the wording has been changed fractionally so that peer-stub (under a new name) can be a subcategory of it. For the next few days it means that peer-stub will contain a few oddities (Mercian Kings, for instance), but it will all make sense when a new name goes through. About to make a few null-edits... Grutness...wha? 09:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - {{peer-stub}} now redirects to {{UK-noble-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 10:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More subcategories of {{struct-stub}} (*all three created)

There are 300-400 Struct-stubs. Of them, about 140 are in Asia, and nearly 80 are in Canada. Also, there are between 300 and 400 Euro-struct-stubs, of which about 100 are in Germany. Therefore, I’d like to propose {{Asia-struct-stub}}, {{Canada-struct-stub}}, and {{Germany-struct-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 08:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All three created. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-comics-stub}}

After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics I'd like to propose UK-comics-stub. There are over 400 stubs in Category:Comics stubs, and a rough count leads me to believe there are exactly 100 comic stubs of UK relevance. Amongst entries are:

Steve block 09:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once the DC and Marvel comics were removed from the category, I had a suspicion that the next largest group would be the British ones. Sounds fair, and - since there's a WikiProject working on these things - not a bad idea at all. Grutness...wha?

Scope of {{fest-stub}} and {{music-stub}}

There is a relatively old and established {{fest-stub}} (This festival-related article...). Unsurprisingly, there are also a fair number of music festival articles in {{music-stub}} (e.g. Aerodrome Festival), and a small number of music festival articles in fest-stub. So, where should they go? A subcategory of both would be the most consistent way, but the number seems to be too low (wild guess: 30-50). Another thing to ponder is if fest-stub is useful in its current wording anyway, since it clearly cuts across multiple stub categories (music-stub, reli-stub, film-stub...) which have little to do with each other besides of having festivals, and well, who's a specialist on festivals? Your opinions would be greatly appreciated. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that no-one's commented on this yet. Fest-stub has always been a bit of a problem. If there were more stubs in it it would help. One possibility would be to scrap it, put the music festivals in music-stub, film-festivals in film-stub, and create something like day-stub to cover any religious festivals, annual holidays and other calendar-related things. Either that or put religious festivals in reli-stub or one of its subcategories and hope that very little remains! Grutness...wha? 07:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that one has grown mightily since I last looked at it - nearly 250 stubs now. When I find the time, I'll take out all music- and film-stubs, and maybe the reli-stubs too. But maybe some renaming would be good, as to keep people from adding such stubs to it again? -- grm_wnr Esc 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of proposing a {{music-venue-stub}} to include not only the festivals but the various bars, concert halls, tours, and other places where music is performed. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd support that strongly (actually been thinking about that myself but got hung up on the question above), but there's still the problem that fest-stub has a very ambiguous name and many music festivals will still be sorted to it. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{web-stub}}

I moved this discussion from "Newly-discovered stub categories" to this section to reflect a proposal I'd like to make. Rx StrangeLove 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is an internet-related stub." Could be actually quite useful, but feeds into Category:Stub and was never listed here or anywhere else... 3 pages have it, created on May 7 by User:Stevertigo. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. sounds quite similar to website-stub, but perhaps not, since that is largely for individual websites... for the sake of uniformity, it should probably be compu-web-stub, but it does sound useful... Grutness...wha? 05:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if internet-stub might be a better name, I've felt the need for something a little more general than website-stub for stubs involving email, usenet, general internet concepts like e-commerce, surfing and the like. Whatever it's name I think it's a very useful suggestion as I've had to get out the shoe-horn to make some stubs fit into the website-stub. I think the Internet is a big enough concept to break out of the compu-XXX-stub scheme but either way I'm all for it. It looks to me like the web-stub feeds into website-stub category, might be easiest to give it's own category. Rx StrangeLove 00:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to propose this change, either use web-stub and create a internet related category for it, or delete it and create a internet-stub (or compu-internet-stub). I think there's more then enough internet related stubs outside of strictly web sites to justify it. Thoughts? Rx StrangeLove 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This could easily cover everything that is not a websites (notably internet memes). All it needs is a cat to fo in business. Circeus 03:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Um - this has actually had a dedicated category for a couple of days (Category:WWW stubs - I created that when I was trying to fix a lot of problem stub categories on Thursday and Friday). If you want to change it around to something new, though, feel free. Grutness...wha? 07:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually there wasn't. When I moved this here and made the proposal there wasn't a dedicated category. Rx StrangeLove 14:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - apologies - it was a little over a day rather than a couple of days. About two hours after you moved this here and suggested changing it, but before I'd checked this page for the day. As I said, though, if you think it would be better as something other than what it is currently, go ahead. Grutness...wha? 14:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-insular-geo-stub}}

I have noticed that the 70+ Puerto Rico city stubs have been split between {{US-geo-stub}} and {{Caribbean-geo-stub}}. This proposed stub would be able to handle all of these plus existing stubs for Guam and the minor islands in the Hawaiian chain. Name is based off of the current Insular area term to reduce confusion with historical US territories. --Allen3 talk 15:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Puerto Rico stubs should all be in Caribbean-geo-stub, since technically Puerto Rico is not part of the United States (and many Puerto Ricans would object if you said it was!), although it is an American territory. Note also that USVI stubs also go in Caribbean-geo-stub, and stubs for places like Guam go in Oceania-geo-stub. As for Hawaii, I suspect the time is coming when individual US states are going to have to get geo-stubs. Isn't there a Hawaii WikiProject? If there is it would make sense to have a Hawaii-geo-stub. Certainly grouping Hawaii and Puerto Rico together strikes me as a bit odd, since I doubt editors who are experts at one would necessarily be exterts at the other. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if there are 70+ of them (the Puerto Rican ones) it might well be worth having a separate category for them anyway, {{PuertoRico-geo-stub}}. If there are more than 100 of them, then it would definitely be a good idea. It could feed into both Caribbean-geo and US-geo as parents. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find about 15 Puerto Rican cities in US-geo-stub, all of which I have now moved into caribbean-geo-stub. And that only makes 48 Puerto Rican geo-stubs in all, since about half of the cities have articles that are beyond stub level. Looks like no {{PuertoRico-geo-stub}} for now... Grutness...wha? 07:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps anything more on this one should be brought up down at the proposed US-geo-stub split, below? I'm busy counting stubs on a state-by-state basis for that, and there are very few Hawaiian ones so far, BTW (only 4 of the first 460). Grutness...wha? 10:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{explosive-stub}}

This would help clear out the thirty or so explosives-related stubs that are currently in {{chem-stub}}, and maybe let explosives experts blow them up a bit... Physchim62 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Boom! A2Kafir 16:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either of the images on the page about explosions would be a good one for the template.A2Kafir 16:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but - only 30 stubs? Grutness...wha? 07:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Poland-bio-stub}}

I've been poking in the huge mega-{{bio-stub}} area, and I've noticed many articles on Polish people. I think this would help clear out the generic bios a bit. Joyous 23:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think that - now that Category:Stub is largely under control, the bio-stubs are the next big problem. And breaking out a few nationalities is not going to hurt. Poland, Spain, China, Italy... they all look viable. As long as they keep the same format (xx-bio-stub to match things like xx-geo-stub) there shouldn't be any real problem. Hm. Someone must be archiving - I'm having the devil's own job finding the right section! Grutness...wha? 01:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've already collected 40 Polish-bio stubs after a very speedy glance at the most stereotypical Polish-sounding names in letters a-c. Joyous 03:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Done. And I might propose some of the others I mentioned, too. Grutness...wha? 12:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Kazakh-stub}}

I created this stub template for the Culture of Kazakhstan article. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I only just now learned that stubs should be discussed before put in articles, is that correct? So I temporarily removed the stub from the article until we discussed it here. Is it official policy to discuss stubs here? Also, is the size of the Kazakhstan flag on the stub okay? Revolución 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Station stubs

I'm slowly running through this category systematically and collecting information in preparation for this and other splits. For access to an Excel spreadsheet with this information, see User:Ceyockey. Courtland 12:30, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

{{UK-station-stub}}

00:53, 2005 May 23 message altered Courtland 04:34, 2005 May 27 (UTC) To assist in segregation of the swollen {{station-stub}}. This was brought up by Grutness under the {{BBC-stub}} discussion. I don't think there is sufficient population available for separate {{UK-radio-staion-stub}} and {{UK-tv-station-stub}}. An examination of the Category:Station stubs resides at File:Station-stub analysis.xls.

At present I would only recommend the creation of {{UK-station-stub}} as it is the only one that beats the 100-article threshold. As making new stub types is easier than destroying them, additional stub types according to country can be made as they cross the 100-article threshold.

Courtland 00:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

OK, well what the hell, I might as well not bring up making stub types here any more if they're just going to pop up willy-nilly without discussion (which this one has). Might as well just go on my merry way and toss stub types left and right ... happy template creation! Courtland 00:56, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Turns out {{UK-station-stub}} is a rail staion-related stub ... well, not for much longer ... Courtland 00:57, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

see the discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Problem_with_the_new_station_stubs - there was talk of changing station-stub to broadcast-stub, so this could get a little messy. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yes yes, I saw that ... I oppose the change to broadcast-stub if only on the basis of precedent. We don't have to have perfect names for the stubs. Courtland 02:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

At c.500 stubs looked at, there are 165 stubs that could have a {{UK-station-stub}} template affixed. Courtland 04:34, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

{{Canada-station-stub}}

Having looked at approaching 500 stubs, there are 122 stubs that could be affixed with a Canada-station-stub template. Courtland 04:45, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

proposing changing station

In order to avoid any potential confusion, I propose the following:

  1. Moving {{UK-station-stub}} railway articles to new {{UK-railstation-stub}}
  2. Moving {{US-station-stub}} railroad articles to new {{US-railstation-stub}}
  3. Using the two former names for broadcast stations, as per Courtland's suggestions above.

Any comments, positive or negative? Grutness...wha? 03:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I see they've already been changed to UK-depot-stub and US-depot-stub. Problem with that, of course, is that depot doesn't mean railway station in the UK, it means the place where railway engines and buses are stored for maintenance or when not in use (the "shed", if you like). Grutness...wha? 08:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

alternate naming convention

After going through (very slowly compared to the speed I've seen others accomplish) close to 900 stubs in this group, it looks like it would be best to abandon the "station" moniker and go for "broadcast" or "media". The reason I feel this is that the mix of stubs includes a) individual stations, b) broadcast towers, c) station networks, d) companies and e) looser groups of stations. This arrangement would also provide an outlet for some stubs from under the {{corp-stub}} and {{org-stub}} templates, and likely some from under the various struct-stub categories ... broadcasting structures seem to be treated in the category system distinctly from building structures; for instance, there's the whole Category:Guyed masts. At present the following could be made: {{Canada-broadcast-stub}}, {{UK-broadcast-stub}}, {{US-broadcast-stub}}, {{Broadcast-stub}} (to which {{Station-stub}} could redirect for eventual retirement). Further, I'd suggest {{Tv-stub}} and {{Radio-stub}} be placed as children of {{Broadcast-stub}}. {{Tvseries-stub}} could eventually be resorbed by {{Tv-stub}} so that {{Tv-stub}} and {{Radio-stub}} would become semantically identical but for the difference in medium, i.e. both containing programs. The eventual hierarchical organization would look like this: 

Broadcasting-stub (Broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  *R Station-stub (Station stubs)
  Tv-stub (Television program stubs)
     *R Tvseries-stub
     US-tv-stub (United States television programme stubs) <=NEW
        Buffyverse-stub (Buffyverse stubs)
        ST-stub (Star Trek stubs)
           ST-ep-stub (Star Trek episode stubs)
        Nickelodeon-stub (Nickelodeon stubs)
        PBS stub (PBS stubs)
     UK-tv-stub (United Kingdom television programme stubs) <=NEW
        Doctorwho-stub (Doctor Who stubs)
     Tv-bio-stub (Television biographical stubs)
     Soap-char-stub (Soap opera character stubs) <=NEW
        *R SoapChar
  Radio-stub (Radio programme stubs)
  Canada-bcast-stub (Canada broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  US-bcast-stub (United States broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
  UK-bcast-stub (United Kingdom broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     BBC-stub (BBC stubs) (also subcat under UKTv-stub)
  Singapore-bcast-stub (Singapore broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     *R Singapore-tv-stub
  HK-bcast-stub (Hong Kong broadcasting stubs) <=NEW
     *R Hong-Kong-tv-stub
     *R HK-tv-stub 
  Website-stub (Website stubs) (would include things like podcasting stations and internet only radio)

This is a lot to digest, but I think it provides an extensible platform that, I hope, doesn't need to be extended much at all.

Courtland 23:53, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

The overall hierarchy looks good, but why UKTv-stub, UScast-stub, etc., and not UK-tv-stub, US-cast-stub, etc? You're splitting things by a second variable, so there should be a second hyphen, surely, and television isn't a proper noun, so why upper case? The names youve suggested don't follow the (extremely tentative, sure) naming guidelines... (This would also be a good opportunity to change the name of SoapChar to soap-char-stub or similar) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-editing advice ... I've changed things in the box above to match, introduced soap-char-stub, and highlighted new additions. Courtland 03:36, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
A distinct improvement :). And as I said before, the hierarchy looks good, too. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh - given that some of the abbreviated country names seem to be being used for precedents for confusing names (see mv-stub below), I'd also suggest not using Ca- or Sg-. I know it needs a bit more typing, but... Then again, we can probably do without the xx-broadcasting-stub redirects, too, which would remove five lines from the list! Grutness...wha? 09:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. I removed the long names and changed the short names to "country-bcast-stub", bcast so as to not confuse with cast as in list of players. Courtland 13:55, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
No complaints from me this time :) sorry about all the revisions etc above! Grutness...wha? 11:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{ship-stub}} and {{warship-stub}} {{mil-ship-stub}}

These would be used for specific ships and would clean out a lot of stuff from {{naval-stub}} and {{water-stub}}. A2Kafir 18:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why not {{ship-stub}} and {{mil-ship-stub}}, to allow for naval ships that are not actually warships? Grutness...wha? 00:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good call; mil-ship would cover stuff like cargo vessels, troop transports, oilers, etc.....A2Kafir 14:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like mil-ship-stub better than warship-stub as well. Courtland 17:53, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • I'll head off a question that might turn up ... where would Coast Guard vessels go (proposing ship-stub)? Where would Naval Reserve vessels go (proposing mil-ship-stub)? If a ship was military ship and has been decommissioned then recommissioned for civilian service, where would that go (proposing ship-stub)? Is the distinction between military and non-military clear in all countries, or will some present special problems (e.g. state-owned vessels that are used for non-military purposes but which have been or can be pressed into military service) (this one doesn't really need to be answered now, I think)? Courtland 17:59, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
Mmmm. And river police, as well. It might be a grey area, but we have grey areas in other categories, too. I think that most ships would be clearly military or non-military. Any borderline ones, just dealing with them on a case-by-case basis will probably be OK. Grutness...wha?
Sounds good. Go go go... Courtland 19:04, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

{{Fruit-stub}} *created

I think the need has come for fruit stubs. for eg. Indian Berry is not a plant instead a fruit of which i have little information. but there is no fruit stub. i came across another one which was listed as a plant stub until i improved and it was no longer a stub. there would be many such articles and fruits yet to be listed. I find that many asian fruits r still missing in the wikipedia so they would all fit niceley under the Template:Fruit stub if it is created. the icon picture could include a banana since it is universally recognized. --Idleguy 11:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Either this is a wind-up or serious... I don't know which. If it's serious, then given that there are less than 800 plant stubs in total I doubt there would be 100 fruit stubs, but if there are, then it would be worthwhile. For now, though, since fruit are plants - or at least parts of plants - use plant-stub, and if you add food-stub as a second stub (and if this is a wind-up, add your vote to the tfd draft page under {{banana-stub}}!). Grutness...wha? 12:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a windup. it's a serious request. For example i have nearly a dozen rare and wild fruits from the Indian subcontinent that i myself have only a line or two to comment on. creating a fruit stub would encourage focussed improvement since fruit comes from a plant and it's too general to be classified as food. I suggested banana just as an icon, a mango or even an apple would do the job just fine. Idleguy 05:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
In that case I owe you an apology. To explain why I wasn't sure, a draft page for "Stubs for deletion" is currently being drawn up, and a long-deleted joke template called {{banana-stub}} is being used as the demonstration case for it. Grutness...<small>wha? 09:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Since i'm unsure how this works, how long does it take before we get a fruit stub created? Since I found that another 2 dozen fruit related articles are just stubs. so if we can get the stub up and running then i'd be able to use it. --Idleguy 17:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
It only takes a few minutes to create but days and days to destroy (through "regular channels"). The wait here is only to get feed-forward to increase the chances of getting it "right" (as if there is such a thing) so that back steps or side steps aren't needed and the sort, once done, doesn't need to be re-done later owing to a change in template/category. There's no formal time period to wait; it's been about a week now. Despite my comment below supporting the creation, I've been thinking more on what Grutness said about the relatively low number of articles ... how about making this {{FNV-stub}} with another, {{Fruit-and-Vegetable-stub}} as a permanent redirect, the FNV for typing convenience, the longer term for clarity, with either suitable for use, but default flow from longer to FNV type? Courtland 18:45, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  • I support creation of {{fruit-stub}} and Category:Fruit stubs, the latter as a child of Category:Food and drink stubs. There is a significant category Category:Fruit that has >100 articles in it and several subcategories, and I think that Category:Fruit stubs would go as a child of this category. Further, in looking at Category:Apples about half of the 18 articles are stubs, several of which were not labeled as such, with some labels being {{plant-stub}} and more being {{food-stub}}. Therefore, I think the representation of the number of potential stubs is underestimated by looking at Category:Plants. Courtland 05:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable - see also the discussion relating to a split of food-stub below. I think {{fruit-stub}} is a pretty reasonable idea, and {{vegetable-stub}} might also be useful. Since no-one's objected in the last week or more, I'm going ahead with making fruit-stub. Grutness...wha? 11:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Spain-bio-stub}}, {{China-bio-stub}}, {{Italy-bio-stub}}, {{NZ-bio-stub}} *All 4 created

Continuing the break up of bio-stubs by nationality... These four seem very likely candidates. And before anyone asks, all Chinese - PRC and RoC! Grutness...wha? 12:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like blanket solutions, but this might be a place to put one forth. So far for nationality there are two major axes: General and Geography. If we accept People as a third axis, then I'd suggest either a "make it if you need it" policy for the axis or some guideline such as if the tally for the General category is in the <200 bin then make a template now. Applying this guideline would mean that only {{Spain}} would not be made.

Courtland 05:38, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

  • The other way is far more daunting - run a tally of how many bio-stubs there are of each, much like you're doing with station stubs and I did a few months back with geo-stubs. And with this many bio-stubs, that would be a stiff task. Ideally, I'd like to see bio-stubs double stubbed by ___location and profession, with hybrid categories where needed, but I realise that would be an impossibly big task. Any reduction of the main bio-stub category would be worthwhile, though. And I think that these forur (or three if Spain is left for noww) would reduce the category a lot. The one problem I forsee is with people from several centuries ago, at which times national boundaries were considerably different, and some modern nations did not exist. Technically people like Leonardo da Vinci were not Italian, since Italy did not exist - although I don't think anyone would object if he were listed as Italian. But what, for example, of people born in what is now Albania some 200 years ago - do you count them as Albanian or Turkish? Grutness...wha? 09:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, ancesters are a toughy. This isn't just a stub-category problem, though, but hits all the standard country-oriented categories; i.e. it's a universal problem. I'm wondering if this has been discussed at the Wikipedia:Village pump or at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography or one of its child WikiProjects. (I've not taken the time to look yet) Courtland 17:43, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I've created all four. I'm expecting some kind of problems over the definition of "China" (those of you who've been around WP:WSS for a while will know what I mean!), but hopefully it can be averted to some extent. I'll try to head one of those most likely off at the pass... :) Grutness...wha? 12:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've spoken to Instantnood, whom many of you will remember was a chief protagonist in the long-running China-geo-stub debate, and I've also left a note on the talk page of Mababa, the other main protagonist. Instantnood seems to think that just one category should be more-or-less acceptable, as many of the biographies will be of people living before 1948. He does suggest, though, that HK-bio-stub should not be made a subcategory of it. Whether others will agree, I don't know, but I think it's an opinion worth reporting here. I've also left a note (in as diplomatic terms as I could!) on Wikipedia_talk:Taiwan-related_topics_notice_board Grutness...wha? 13:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suggested, in the conversation with Grutness, not to subcategorised category:Hong Kong people stubs as there are some non-ethnic Chinese people in the Hong Kong category (for instance, cricketers and former colonial officials). They, although usually are permanent residents of Hong Kong, have no or little Chinese ancestry, and they're not PRC citizens. Making it a subcategory would therefore generate some problem. As an alternative I suggested to add a hyperlink at category:Chinese people stubs to the Hong Kong category.
The main problem that can likely be expected to arise would be with Taiwanese people, be they people in the Japanese Formosa era, or pro-independence people in the present day. — Instantnood 15:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
For the conversation between Grutness and I, see user talk:Grutness#China-bio-stub and user talk:Instantnood#Stub category. — Instantnood 15:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Street

Moved from where it was listed under "Newly-discovered..." to here

I'd like to propose a stub for city and town streets: {{street-stub}}.

Some of these are mistakenly listed under {{road-stub}}, there abandoned ignominiously to wither among rural roads, highways, and the like. Stubbing them for what they are—streets, not roads—would make them likelier to catch the eye of urbanists and Jane Jacobs types knowledgeable in urban planning and interested in such matters as street life, the street wall, the sidewalk, pedestrian activity, and so on.

Streets in List of carfree places (e.g. those in Venice) are especially likely candidates, as not even a suburbanite could possibly mistake them for "roads."

Typogfk 22:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Reasonable (having walked on a couple of those streets), though easily overused ... there's a tendency for there to be at least one person out there who will dump a database into Wikipedia in the form of stubs ... and if that happens with this stub type, woe be our band of stub-warriors here. Which reminds me about the debate as to whether zipcodes are encyclopedic a while ago (not here, but elsewhere). Courtland 01:51, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  • support - with caveat. Currently, we have road-stub, UK-road-stub, and US-road stub. You'll probably need the equivalent categories here, too, otherwise you'll be moving artciles out of a more specific category and into a less specific one. Also, as to not even a suburbanite could possibly mistake them for "roads.", in some countries "road" means leafy suburban avenue whereas "street" means busy car-laden main thoroughfare. In those countries, highways are bigger than streets, streets are bigger than roads. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about "street" and "road" being prone to local flavoring and inconsistent usage. Maybe there is a better term that get's across the message. One generic term might be "way" (way-stub, whey-stub, weigh-stub ... good thing we work in text here). Courtland 22:22, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

What if we went from the other direction, and marked the main routes {{highway-stub}} (or {{mway-stub}}, or {{hiway-stub}}, or {{route-stub}}), making them the subcategory? Would that work? Grutness...wha? 03:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation proposal: environ-stub

This one was discovered elsewhere on the page and moved into its correct place

for anything related to environmental issues. It would be suitable for articles likeminister of the environment or ecolabel or toxic waste. It may be very wide in its use but then why not use many stub categories for the same article? e.g. toxic waste is already industry stubbed but the environ-stub would equally suitable. BedrupsBaneman 30 May 2005 15:25 GMT

I could have sworn we already had something like that (envir-stub, or ecology-stub, or something like that). It would probably be useful - sustainability stub could possibly be redirected to it, too, since that one's fairly useless. How many stubs are there that could take this new template though? Grutness...wha? 00:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any other stubs related to environmental issues, i.e. environ-stub, envir-stub,eco-stub, ecology-stub and environmental-stub are not defined, although there are sustainability-stub and climate-stub. Having read the article environment again the subject may be too diverse and is partly covered by other stubs. In Category:Sustainability_stubs it is stated that "Sustainability is an economic, social, and ecological concept" so it may not be useless but rather useful. This also huge, but then probably many stub articles can be viewed both as an x-stub and an sustainability-stub. So I suggest that we drop my suggestion for an environ-stub. Bedrupsbaneman 11:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Splitting {{Org-stub}}

This category's getting several pages long. I have already started with {{UK-org-stub}} and I propose the following to go on with:

Joe D (t) 01:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of making such a distinction - there exist articles on many US political organizations, so you'd end up with a mess if you left people the free choice. --Joy [shallot] 09:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - just split things along one dimension (which in this case would be by country). If there seem to be too many stubs in one country, then consider splitting it by a second dimension (type of org) later. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Computer graphics stubs

I have found a fair number of computer graphics stubs on {{compu-stub}}, and there are also some of them on {{compu-sci-stub}}. I propose creating a {{compu-graphics-stub}} for them. --cesarb 02:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created. --cesarb 23:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Split/redirection of Caucasus-geo-stub

{{Caucasus-geo-stub}} has always been a bit of a problem - everyone knows were the caucasus is, but not many people can remember what countries are there. This stub actually covers just three countries, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Azerbaijan now has about 80 stubs, and Armenia has over 60, with only Georgia well below any kind of threshold for a separate category. I would like to propose creating {{Armenia-geo-stub}} and {{Azerbaijan-geo-stub}}, and redirecting {{Caucasus-geo-stub}} (with all its remaining Georgian stubs) to the holding pen of {{Euro-geo-stub}}.

By the way, I've just finished a re-count of the geo-stubs of all un-split countries - there are now nine with over 50 stubs each, though only five of them have 60 or more (none are that close to 100). The full list is at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying if anyone's interested. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of US-geo-stub

I see there's a California stub already ({{Calif-geo-stub}}). Are there any criteria for creating other state-based stubs? What about naming conventions, if any? Would it make sense to use the two-letter USPS abbreviation as in {{US-AL-geo-stub}} to {{US-WY-geo-stub}}? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:35, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

The criterion used here in the past is that there needed to be a specific wikiproject about the state. Unfortunately someone unconnected with the project went ahead and created the misnamed Calif-geo-stub anyway. I think the time is probably coming to have a look at breaking all 50 (or at least some of them) out. It would be worth running a survey to see which states have over 100 potential geo-stubs though, rather than creating one for Nebraska and then discovering that it only has three stubs! I suppose the two letter codes make sense, although they'd be a problem for those of us outside the US who haven't a clue whether MI is Michigan, Mississippi, Minnesota, or Missouri. The other option would be to go with them and have the full names as redirects (like this - USMontana-geo-stub, otherwise there'll be trouble with Georgia!) Grutness...wha? 03:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just want to explicitly concur with Grutness with regard to the issue of the two-letter state codes - this requires stub sorters to know an additional set of fifty two-letter codes and that's more annoying than having to type the whole state name (even in the case of Mississippi :). If anything, each should have a redirect so that it works either way. --Joy [shallot] 09:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of them should be pretty obvious - especially those with unique first two letters. Clearly CA would be California, FL Florida, HA Hawaii, MO Montana, and WY Wyoming. As to the less clear ones, it would make sense if Arkansas is AK and Arizona is AR, AS for Alaska and AB for Alabama. MC would make sense for Michigan, but is MI Mississippi or Missouri? Grutness...wha? 13:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see {{UT-geo-stub}} has already been created, too. There are around 2600 US-geo-stubs, which roughly translates to 50 per state. (I'm sure some have more than others.) For the sake of consistency, should geo stubs for all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) be created at the same time? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:13, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
UT-geo-stub was created because of a wikiproject on Utah. And yes, 2600 works out roughly at 50 per state... and the threshopld we use is 60-100... and no doubt those stubs will not be evenly distributed (will there be as many geo-stubs on Rhode Island as there are on Texas? Are you seriously expecting 50 stubs on DC?). So the answer, as far as I'm concerned, is a most definite NO. To quote what I wrote before - It would be worth running a survey to see which states have over 100 potential geo-stubs though, rather than creating one for Nebraska and then discovering that it only has three stubs! Hold off on this until I run that survey. Then we might at least have some kind of idea of which states need stub categories and which ones don't. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have just been bold. {{Calif-geo-stub}} now redirects to {{California-geo-stub}}. And, after counting through the first page of US geo-stubs (while doing so removing the odd school-stub, struct-stub, and geol-stub), one state stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of numbers... California. Seems whoever created that category didn't think to look for too many stubs... I shall post the names of any states that pass the 100 stub threshold here as they pass that mark. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count update: 463 articles gone (A-mid Ca), and I'm calling it quits for the night - the cold weather's getting at my arthritic-y thumb - and sleet is forecast :( Of those 463, every state except Delaware has at least one US-geo-stub (so had Alberta, Ontario, New South Wales, and Portugal, but I fixed them!). California has 60 stubs of those 462, no other state has over 25 (although both Washington state and New York have over 20). Given that there are 2600 current US-geo-stubs, if these ratios stay constant (unlikely) these will be the only three states with over 100 stubs, and 10 others will have over 60. Some will struggle to get to 10 stubs. I think moving all the California stubs out will greatly reduce the size of the category. It's also worth noting that I checked 500 stubs - the other 37 shouldn't have been in the category to start with! Grutness...wha? 10:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image showing only regions removed, see better one below. grm_wnr

Yes, that might just work. And those few states that do reach 100 stubs could be spun off (which would proably include Alaska, by the look of it). The only problem would be the very small handful of stubs from Hawaii (looks likely to be about 20). If so, it will need to be treated like the African geography categories, with this map in all the categories and probably small map icons on the templates so that editors can notice mistakes quickly. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since we already have {{hawaii-stub}} (even though it's broken right now, but that's easily fixed) I say we make an exception for Hawaii and just keep that. BTW, for those who haven't noticed, the regions above have the distinction of being official - they're used by the United States Census Bureau. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Officially, it seems Hawaii is counted among the West (as is Alaska). -- grm_wnr Esc 13:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A thought: If the US is being broken up into either regions or states, is it about time the annoying (and badly-named) {{state park-stub}} was deprecated? or is there a wikiproject using it? Grutness...wha? 10:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count update: After 1448 stubs counted (A-M), California has reached 133 stubs. Alaska has over 90, and Washington state has reached 80, and Colorado, Illinois, NY, and Ohio all have about 60. Nebraska has one. If divided into the four regions, all four would have over 225 already (the west would have nearly 450), and I've still got 900 stubs to tally. I'm also removing a huge number of US-struct-stubs and metro station stubs as I go... Grutness...wha? 12:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 
The USCB further subdivides into nine divisions. But they're probably too non-intuitive for stub categorisation. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Well the four aren't totally intuitive - I have to keep reminding myself "Oklahoma is south not midwest; Ohio is midwest, not northeast." The original four are fairly good divisions, I think - especially if we explicitly make Hawaii part of the "West" region and pare off the really big ones. We can always look at further splits later. Hopefully I should have a completed count in the next 24 hours. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finish of count - proposed split

Well, I've now gone through all the US-geo-stubs. This is my suggestion for a split - the numbers are the approximate number that are in each category

No other states reach 100 stubs, although several are close (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio each have 75 or more). Grutness...wha? 09:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could we go with a {{NewYork-geo-stub}} and {{Washington-geo-stub}} out of simplicity? That way all the states have a parallel format. If someone wants to make a New York City stub, they can make {{NewYorkCity-geo-stub}}, and likewise, a {{WashingtonDC-geo-stub}} for DC. Incidentally, New York and Washington both link to the states, not the cities. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you prefer. The reason I used those names is that overseas (i.e., outside the US) if you hear "New York" and "Washington", you instantly think of the cities. The states are usually named with the word "state" after their names - I don't know how they're called in the US, though so if "New York" and "Washington" are usually taken to mean the states, that's fine. There is, BTW, already a NYC-stub (but not a geo-stub). By the way - as with the uncategorised countries, I'm adding the full list as it currently stands to my geo-stub tallying page Grutness...wha? 12:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blissfully ignorant of this page and procedure of stub creation proposal, I boldy created {{Colorado-stub}} a couple days ago to hold the many Colorado-related stubs I have been generating lately (I figured if {{Texas-stub}} and {{UT-stub}}/{{UT-geo-stub}} existed, then it was OK.). I had already wanted to create {{Colorado-geo-stub}} as a sub cat when I stumbled on this page. I can virtually guarantee that at the rate I'm going, Colorado will soon have as many or more geo stubs than any state of the Union. Also I plan on turning my attention to Oregon stubs pretty soon as well. -- Decumanus 00:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
With 94 stubs, Colorado is immediately next after the ones with over 100, so I've added it to the list above. Oregon isn't close yet, though. The main problem is the south, if we split by regions - there are several in the "close, but not quite" category (Florida 75, NC 73...), but nothing really quite big enough. By the way, if anyone wants to help with this task, I can post then a list of all the stubs I've found for each individual state! Grutness...wha? 01:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can do the Northeast and New York. And yes, I would like to see that list :). --Spangineer (háblame) 11:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully I'm not moving too fast, but I just categorized 100+ of the easy NE stubs (mostly ones with state names in them), and I also just created {{NewYork-geo-stub}}. I realize that "New York" commonly refers to the city overseas, but in the name of consistency with the article title, I went with that. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Completed nearly all the categorization for {{Oregon-geo-stub}}. There may be some stragglers in the original {{US-geo-stub}} I didn't see, so I'd like to see your list, Grutness, when you have time. -- Decumanus 06:23, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

(for some reason this bit got shifted, or I didn't edit it in right the first time...) I've started putting the list in here. I'll add the south and west when I get time (probably after the down-time's over). Grutness...wha? 00:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

since I'm home a little sooner than I thought (after 250 km driving through sleet :( I'll try to get a little more available before the down-time. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would have happened then, too, if someone hadn't decided that 6:56 was close enough to the advertised time, and shut Wikipedia down then! GRRR! Grutness...wha? 23:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops - mea culpa. I forgot to allow for daylight saving. It actually went down at 7:56. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Implementation of split

I have created {{US-south-geo-stub}} and Category:Southern US geography stubs. Can y'all check to ensure I did it right? Thanks. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:04, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I just changed the category of Category:Southern US geography stubs; instead of being under U.S. related stubs, I put it under U.S. geography stubs. I also used your template as a base for the northeast stubs. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
And I've just used the northeast template as a basis for {{US-midwest-geo-stub}} and {{US-west-geo-stub}}. I'll start filling {{US-south-geo-stub}} this week. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:24, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make a start on {{Alaska-geo-stub}}. Note the link to the big list of where everything is listed at User:Grutness/US_geo-stub_list. Cooperation in action - pity that stub sorting can't be up for Collaboration of the week! :) Grutness...wha? 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... seems someone beat me to it - Alaska-geo-stub already exists... Grutness...wha? 00:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about {{UT-geo-stub}}? Should it be renamed to Utah-geo-stub? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
It should. I created Utah-geo-stub as a redirect to it, since I didn't want to tread on the toes of the Utah wikiproject, but on second thoughts it would be far better the other way round (so I'll change it). BTW, I've just reworded all four of the US region categories, to make them like the other "regional-split" geography stub categories. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are we double stubbing structures according to region/state or not? --Spangineer (háblame) 16:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to. Structures shouldn't have geo-stub of any kind - they should have US-struct-stub - but some stub sorters seem to forget that and put geo-stub templates on struct-stub articles anyway. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about amusement park stubs? Do they belong in xx-geo-stub as some of them are now (Hamel's Amusement Park, for example)? At least one is in {{US-stub}}: Oaks Amusement Park. For what it's worth, there is a lightly populated {{Ride-stub}} for amusement park rides, but not for the parks themselves. Would it be good to create a amusement park stub category and put parks and rides in it? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:26, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Well, since ride-stub is there, we might as well use it. There are quite a few amusement park rides in struct-stub (the parks themselves are in geo-stub, though). Grutness...wha? 07:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposals, June 2005

Lace Stub

As part of the newly created Wikiproject Lace I'd like to propose the creation of {{Lace-stub}}. Pages that would be designated as lace stubs are currently:

  1. Not yet created, like most of the articles linked from Template:Lace_types
  2. Currently designated as art-stubs (too general), like Needle_lace
  3. Not yet designated as stubs, like Chantilly_lace

Julie E. 00:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to have some sort of category, since these things aren't categorised elsewhere, and having a WikiProject does help the case, but normally categories are only created if there are already a large number of stubs. Perhaps a compromise like fabric-stub, for fabric and needlework in general, might help? I think there are quite a few other fabric related articles which could be stubbed with that, and it would make the hunt for stub articles considerably easier. If it later turns out that there are plenty of lace-related stubs, then a lace stubs category could easily be made as a subcategory of it. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Part of the reasoning behind creating a Lace stub, despite the lack of current articles in need of such a stub, is that there is the projected creation, through the Wikiproject Lace, of a large number (I would estimate between 20 and 40 65 and 100) of articles which would then need the lace stub, so instead of creating a textile crafts stub (which i agree is probably needed) and then coming back here in 4 weeks and asking for a Lace stub again, we should either create both or just the Lace stub (and leave the textile crafts one until someone with the drive to implement it asks for it). Certainley the art stub which is currently being used is innappropriate
See [1] for an idea of how many types of lace there are. -- pcrtalk 07:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This last bit isn't really relevant to the argument. There may be 10,000 types of lace, but if there are only two stub articles, the template's still not needed. It's far more important if there were currently lots of lace stubs - how many are there? Grutness...wha? 08:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Currently about a dozen, but I plan on creating at least another 50 in the next few days. If this is a case of "talk is cheap" then I'll shut up and come back here when they have been created (by which time I'll also have been bold and created the lace stub :) -- pcrtalk 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you can find or make 50, then since there is a WikiProject, I can't see anyone here objecting to the new template. Let us know when it's done, though! Grutness...wha? 09:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

School-district-stub

I think there are a lot of these already, and Wikipedia:schools encourages people to create school district articles for any school that doesn't have one. Apparently there are over 1,100 school districts in California alone. Kappa 04:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly strongly opposed to this one. All current school district stubs are (or at least should be) marked with US-geo-stub. There's already a proposal further up the page to split that by state, which is a far better idea than splitting it by school-district vs not-school-district. And since the state split has already started due to states with wikiprojects, it would be far easier to hold off on school-district-stub than to stop a split by states. As for there being 1100 school districts, that's as may be, but there aren't 1100 stubs on California school districts. In fact, there are only 2500 US-geo-stubs in total. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should they be tagged as geo stubs? I'd think anyone expanding them is likely to be interested in education, not places. Kappa 13:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Because school-stub is for individual schools, and school districts are areas from which the schools draw their pupils (what here in NZ we call the school's catchment area). Since a district is a place, it would make sense if it got geo-stub. The point's fairly moot anyway... I've been going through the US geo-stubs to sort them on a state-by-state basis, and I've only found four or five school districts in there. I also had a look in category:School stubs, and that contains only a little over a dozen in total. So unless someone suddenly produces another 50 or more stubs, it doesn't look like there'd be enough articles for it. I've suggested an alternative way of splitting that category below, BTW... it may be a better way of splitting the category up! Grutness...wha? 13:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, how about tagging them with both {{school-stub}} and {{geo-stub}}, they can at least be googled for that way. Kappa 14:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough - that would make sense (only they'd be US-geo-stub, not geo-stub :) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UK-school-stub and US-school-stub?

Is it worth splitting school-stub by making separate US and UK subcategories? I doubt anyone who knows the US school system will be able to say much about UK schools or vice versa, and I'd say that each of these two countries accounts for 30-40% of the school stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a reasonable split. Courtland 17:59, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

{{galaxy-stub}}

Another further subdivision of {{astro-stub}}. It would be for individual galaxies, galaxy clusters, characteristics of galaxies, etc., which make up at least 100 and probably many more of those in {{astro-stub}}. A2Kafir 03:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest {{astro-gal-stub}} instead for easier recollection. Actually I wonder if {{star-stub}} ought to be {{astro-star-stub}} as well. --Phil | Talk 14:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I thing galaxy-stub is easier to remember, actually. And we have asteroid-stub too. A2Kafir 22:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food and Drink Specific stubs

Basic divisions

There are well over 800 stubs in the {{food-stub}} category. In fact #800 begins with an I. Therefore, I propose the following generalized stubs to help bring this category down to size. Since these are not terribly specific, I am not going to attempt to prove them, unless somebody sees fit to challenge their necessity.

Granted, there is a {{beer-stub}} for Beers and breweries, but I saw a lot of other alcoholic beverage stubs in Category:Food and drinks stubs--and I don't even drink!

Also, I propose these specific stubs because as I skimmed through the Food Stubs, I couldn't help but notice them.

{{soda-stub}}
As a Midwesterner, I request that if {{soda-stub}} is created, that {{pop-stub}} be created as well as a redirect.  :) A2Kafir 19:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can't argue with that. We may need to create Template:Cola-stub as a redirect as well. *Kat* 08:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
well, I can argue with that! :) The only three things on here that are "soda" are a type of bread, a machine and a slang term for a person! Grutness...wha? 09:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about {{soft-drink-stub}} ? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's what they're called here, so it's fine by me, but is the term widely used in the US, UK, etc? Grutness...wha? 02:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The term "soft drink" is fine for the UK. --TheParanoidOne 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whatever it's called, Soda bread and soda jerk shouldn't be labelled with them. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. :) --TheParanoidOne 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{candy-stub}}
  • Airhead (candy)--brand
  • Aero (chocolate)--brand
  • Big League Chew--brand
  • Big Red (chewing gum)--brand
  • Black Jack (gum)--brand
  • Bottle Caps (candy)
  • Bubble Tape
  • Bubble Yum
  • Bubblicious
  • Bubbaloo
  • Bust-up gum--brand
  • Butterfinger
  • Chocolate bar
  • Chocolate chip
  • Crunch (candy)--brand
  • Crunchie--brand
  • Crunchy Frog
{{cook-tool-stub}}

(best name I could come up with.)

  • Bottle opener
  • Broiler
  • Coffee filter
  • Cookie cutter
  • Extractor hood
  • Food processor
  • Grater
  • Heidelberg Tun
  • Kettle
  • London grill
  • Mandolin (cooking)
  • Oven
  • Pot still
  • Potato ricer
  • Salt shaker
  • Salt cellar
  • Slop bowl
  • Skillet
  • Sunbeam CG
  • Waffle iron
  • Wok with Yan
Thinking a bit wider - {{tableware-stub}} for the tableware and {{cooking-stub}} for everything else? --Joy [shallot] 20:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that while I was searching for enough articles to justify my more specific proposals I came across enough articles to justify a sauce-stub, sandwiche-stub, chicken-stub and hot-drink-stub. It remains up to somebody else to justify these, because I am sick and tired of looking at that food-stub category.*Kat* 05:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I found my original edit and have restored it here. *Kat* - I hope that your deletion of my comments was an accident rather than deliberate! Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with a broader split to start with - into just food and drink - after all, it's not like you're talking 3000 stubs here. Then we can worry about the separate parts. As far as drink is concerned, we have {{beer-stub}} and {{wine-stub}} - adding in {{spirits-stub}} and a generic {{drink-stub}} would probably be enough there (and I certainly don't like the name {{soda-stub}} - only about three of the things you had on that list were soda, and of them one was a food!). As for food, there's already talk of a {{fruit-stub}}, so why not add {{vegetable-stub}} and {{sweet-stub}} (or {{candy-stub}}, one to redirect to the other, perhaps?). That should cut the category down considerably without having to worry about cooking utensils (which aren't foods anyway, they're tools!) and subdivisions like meat and dairy. All these subdivisions are probably overkill. Oh, and I hope you meant {{dessert-stub}} :) Grutness...wha? 05:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I support Grutness' proposed stub categories. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Blank Brazil-stub

Not sure where to mention this. The Brazil stub template is completely empty, no text or flag as with the other country stubs. I assume I can just go add the text using the boilerplate from the other country stubs? If not, what? SeventyThree 23:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... looks like someone made a mess with it then blanked it rather than reverting it to what it should look like - two weeks ago. I hope it hasn't been used since then. It's back to normal now. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oceania-stub and Caribbean-stub

There are {{Caribbean-geo-stub}} and {{Oceania-geo-stub}} stubs and categories, but there is no related stub that I can find for articles relating to the culture, people etc. of those parts of the world - {{Caribbean-stub}} and {{Oceania-stub}}. I don't know where those stubs might be sorted now - I've sorted them to {{music-stub}} (orthogonal to the region) and {{CAmerica-stub}} (this is not too bad, just non-obvious). --ScottDavis 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both are reasonable, I think. It would also allow us to finally deprecate Pitcairn-stub (which we couldn't before, with two bio-stubs that didn't belong anywhere else!) Caribbean-stub has been suggested in the past, and I think it would be easy to find 100 (or close to, at least) articles for each of these categories. As for "orthogonal to region", with bio-stubs I don't think that hurts too much. Some editors will know people by where they're from, others by what they do. CAmerica (why not CentralAm, like the geo-stub???) isn't such a good idea though, since it isn't really the same area at all. Grutness...wha? 11:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{makeup-stub}}

Whilst going through the list of {{stub}}s, I found the article, lipstick and I have no idea where to put it. Perhaps a {{makeup-stub}} is in order.

The {{fashion-stub}} is the best choice for the lipstick article. BlankVerse ∅ 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, that's the best place for it. Courtland 15:38, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

{{singer-stub}}

I think people are putting singers and vocalists into either the {{music-stub}} and {{musician-stub}} categories, but those are only rough fits. There is already an {{opera-singer-stub}}, but I think that there should also be a generic {{singer-stub}}. BlankVerse ∅ 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorting any singer I find in {{music-stub}} to {{musician-stub}}. Singers are musicians. But musician-stub itself is hopelessly crowded and should be split up. I'd rather split it by genre than by role, even though some say it can't be done. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that most people are probably like me--when they think of musicians, their first idea is of instrumentalists only. Most singers are known primarily as singers, or maybe singer-songwriters. There are not that many that are really well known as both singers and instrumentalists (Nat King Cole is the first one that comes to mind).
Trying to fit some people into different genres is going to be very easy for some people, but where in the heck would you fit a genre-crossers like Lyle Lovett (singer-songwriter?)? BlankVerse ∅ 04:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I personally think of a singer as a muscian without confusion, the instrument being their voice. Courtland 17:57, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
I'd put Lovett into country-musician-stub without hesitation, since that seems to be his primary genre. If he's really that much of a crossover artist, double tag with jazz-musician-stub. Alternatively, it could be argued that singer/songwriter is a genre in itself - but there are tons of singers (and even more vocalists, which I'd suggest you use if subdivision by role is deemed more workable) that don't fit in there, but somewhere else. -- a non-logged in User:Grm wnr from 84.147.232.130 18:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{engineer-stub}}/{{inventor-stub}}

From browsing the People stubs category, many such people aren't sorted because they don't fit elsewhere. This could be a single template and category for now, one template name redirecting to the other. --Joy [shallot] 16:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{psychology-stub}} or {{psychologist-stub}}

The field of psychology is also hard to sort. --Joy [shallot] 16:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blah, found it at Template:Psych-stub, will make redirects. People need to start using normal names in stub names, it is tiring to have to remember all the silly little contractions. --Joy [shallot] 16:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Psych" is also ambiguous because it can expand to "psychiatry" rather than only psychology. --Joy [shallot]
...which is why it's called that. The two terms, although different, do overlap, and to many people they seem difficult to differentiate. Psych-stub deliberately allows both to be covered. As for {{psychologist-stub}}, I'd suggest doing the same thing there and creating {{psych-bio-stub}}, especially since the fields weren't differentiated at all until the early to mid 20th century Grutness...wha? 01:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The distinction between the two is more on training and tools than the maladies that they treat, so I think it's fair to keep them together under {{Psych-stub}} and {{Psych-bio-stub}}. Courtland 17:54, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Well... not quite. Eaiest way I know of thinking of it is roughly translate the Niugini Pidgin for the terms, (IIRC psychiatry is "fixing the brain", psychology is "fixing the soul"). Mind you, we need to change the wording on the template a bit, since it does only say psychology at the moment. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh... editors definitely aren't supposed to need to guess the proper intent of an article from an ambiguous title and contradicting content. D'oh! :)
Having said that, I don't think that the psychologists and the psychiatrists would quite agree that they can all be lumped together into the same category. Not all psychologists are clinical psychologists, and even clinical psychologists don't have pharmacological training that the psychiatrists do need to have, AFAIR. While these differences may not seem large in absolute terms, in relative terms they are quite important. --Joy [shallot] 00:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, (putting on former academic hat) as a former psychology researcher (and no, not in a clinical field - my specialty was visual perception), I'm sure that - while there is a rivalry between the two professions - most would not mind one stub category being used for both vocations. There is a great deal of overlap, particularly in historical subjects. And many stub sortters would almost certainly have problems deciding which template to use. What's more, I'm unconvinced there would be enough articles for two separate categories for psychiatry and psychology. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know it's a can of worms, but something needs to be done so that we can sort these out of bio-stub. --Joy [shallot] 16:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An obvious question: Could they be sorted to their resective country-bio-stub bins? I'd understand if not all could. Also, I don't think one stub-type would handle all the folks you suggest; an anarchist needn't be a terrorist, for instance. There already is the {{military-bio-stub}} which could be used for some of these folks, in the cases where there is state-sponsorship or affiliation. Courtland 17:51, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

{{med-bio-stub}} or {{physician-stub}}

We seem to have a number of physicians and other medicine workers with articles. --Joy [shallot] 16:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Physician-stub}} is likely needed at some point. For an all-inclusive category, we could consider {{Healer-stub}} which could include physicians, nurses of all kinds, midwives, acupuncturists, holistic healers, shamans, faith healers, etc. There could subsequently be breakouts to handle subcategories, with {{Physician-stub}} perhaps not needing to come into existence if one jumps directly to things like {{Surgeon-stub}} or {{GP-stub}} (General Practitioner) if needed. Courtland 17:39, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

{{turk-stub}}

I reckon there should be a Turkey stub because there are many other articles apart from Turkey-geo stubs. - Erebus555...natter at me

If this is to be created, please make {{Turkey-stub}} rather than {{turk-stub}}. Thanks. Courtland 17:25, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Agreed - Turkey-stub is a better name. BTW, I'm moving this to its correct place on the page (it's a proposal, not a discovery!) Grutness...wha? 00:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{inorganic-cpd-stub}} and {{organic-cpd-stub}}

The cpd stands for compound. These two stubs would help take some of the pressure off {{chem-stub}} (currently over 1000 stubs). At a rough estimate, I would say 200 articles for the former and 300 for the latter. The image from {{chem-stub}} could be retained. Physchim62 01:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply {{organic-chem-stub}} and {{inorganic-chem-stub}}? cpd is hardly intuitive, and these will be children of chem-stub. It would also allow for stubs related to organic chemistry in general (allowing the categorising of, for example, "ketone" - not an organic compound per se, but definitely categorisable as organic chemistry). Grutness...wha? 07:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I support the original proposal. The problem with organic-chem-stub is that it is ambiguous- before long people will apply it to general organic chemistry concepts such as Zaitsev's Rule or aromaticity. We need a specific stub just for compounds, since there are so many of them (see list of organic compounds, which probably has only 50% of them) and they are growing rapidly in number. It may be that we need a more general organic stub, but removing the compounds will reduce the pressure. As for not being intuitive, I take the point, but cpd is a standard abbreviation approved by the American Chemical Society for use in Chemical Abstracts and the like, so it should be understood by the chemists who are likely to be doing the higher level stub sorting needed. Walkerma 15:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. To be my sometimes pedantic self .... The abbreviation "cmpd" is used more frequently than "cpd" and should be used in the stub title. {{Organic-cmpd-stub}} should sit as a child of Category:Organic compounds and should be entitled Category:Organic compound stubs. {{Inorganic-cmpd-stubs}} should sit as a child of Category:Inorganic compounds and should be entitled Category:Inorganic compound stubs. Please use the boilerplate text at WP:Stub to create the templates and categories. Courtland 17:41, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Nah, not good enough: if the stub is to indicate compound, why then making it so cryptic. I propose to write the word out in full: {tl|inorganic-compound-stub}} and {{organic-compound-stub}}. Wim van Dorst 18:57, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC).
The abbreviation "cmpd" is not cryptic to anyone who would be working on these articles, i.e. people with some chemistry-related experience. Courtland 19:38, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
...but it would be to stub-sorters. Remember we're trying to make the template names as easy to understand as possible! I'd agree with Wim's suggestion. Grutness...wha? 06:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I fully support the categorization proposed by Courtland (it seemed so obvious that I forgot to add it in to the proposal). I prefer my original suggestion for the titles ('cos it's quicker to type :), but I will bow down gracefully if others feel this will cause too much trouble for non-chemists! Physchim62 21:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The word compound is already a difficult word. Why making it more difficult to remember by arbitrarily abbreviating it to cpd or cmpd. It needs explanation in the very first sentence of this section! And I have a chemical background and still don't think that comp or cpd or cmpd is good to remember, assess for appropriateness for a give article and handier to type than compound. So I support [[user:Grutness|Grutness (and myself. Wim van Dorst 22:37, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC).

{{LIS-stub}}

LIS = Library and information science. It's an academic field. --Robojames 14:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many of those exist and where are they sorted at the moment? -- grm_wnr Esc 18:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At least one (Integrated_library_system) is currently unsorted. I haven't gone looking for others, I just happened upon this one while stub-sorting, realized there was no appropriate category, came here to look for a discussion, and found this discussion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
OPAC was in computer stubs until I removed it... because it's not really a stub anymore. Check out the LIS category for a list of LIS articles. Many of these may be stubs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Is this related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Librarians? If so, precedent says a stub type would be appropriate, even if the number of stubs needed for a stub type (about 100) is not met - which I doubt in this case. I recommend a better name for the template though, we generally try to avoid cryptic TLAs. How about {{lib-stub}} or {{library-stub}}? -- grm_wnr Esc 19:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The abbreviation "LIS" is in standard use among people knowledgable in the area. I'd suggest though that if this is created it be broadened and created as {{InfoSci-stub}}, co-created with Category:Information science stubs and placed as a child of Category:Information science. The new category could become a parent of several already existing categories that deal with information work (see the subcategory listing for Category:Information science. Courtland 19:50, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
As a former library assistant, I've never heard of the term. You sure it isn't a piece of US-only terminology? Infosci-stub would make a lot more sense, as it's a considerably wider category. Not Lin--stub (too ambiguous) or Library-stub (that would be the buildings), though. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{genital-integrity-stub}}

(This is a tough page to navigate) I'd like to use this stub for genital integrity related articles, so as to keep the articles related to the subject categorically coherent, and we can avoid using a different stub that might sometimes fail to be a precise overlap.

This seems like a highly specific topic. How many stub article do you forsee being placed into this group? If there are any existing stub articles on this subject, where have they currently been placed? --TheParanoidOne 05:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another problem is that this particular stub name is HIGHLY POV. Considering the major revert wars, RFCs, RFARs, and even bannings that have resulted from the various circumcision-related articles, it's best to keep any such articles under as general a stub title as possible such as {{sex-stub}}. BlankVerse ∅ 08:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is waaaay too specific. Genital integrity doesn't even have a separate main category - it surely doesn't need a stub category! Grutness...wha? 08:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not as specific as you might think, given all of the worldwide concerns among males, females, and intersex. There are also many notable persons and events I'd like to make articles for, such as international symposia and various authors. I'm totally fine with the opposing views using a specific stub for their authors, but just sticking everything into sex or biology stubs is wrong, because the topic overlaps very strongly with sociology and cultural topics. So that is why I feel it's a good candidate as a stub category. Otherwise, using other stubs is sure to cause more category debate than this solution would. DanP 18:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One of the criteria for the creation of a new stub template is that there be a sufficient number of articles to populate the category. As I asked earlier, are there any existing stub articles on this subject, and where have they currently been placed? --TheParanoidOne 19:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with double-stubbing an article with both sex-stub and socio-stub, either. Also, you mentioned "authors" - they'd get a subcategory of bio-stub rather than any other form of stub. I'll bow to your knowledge as far as "worldwide concerns" (although, to be honest, I've never heard the term used before you brought it up here), but also repeat the earlier comment that if there's no category for genital integrity as a whole, I doubt there's enough need for a stub category. Grutness...wha? 10:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Reli-hist-stub}}

What about {{Reli-hist-stub}} for marking history-of-religion articles? ~~~~ (Added by User:-Ril-)

{{canada-geo-stub}}

Now around 1400 articles. As there's far fewer .ca provinces than .us states, a straightforward provincial split seems viable: at least the majority of them will be over 100 articles, and I'd think we might as well create them all, on spec. Comments? Alai 20:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Something along the lines of canada-ON-geo-stub for Ontario, right? --TheParanoidOne 21:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me, maybe with a redirect from Ontario-geo-stub, etc (or v.v.). Postal and ISO agree on all these, do they? Alai 22:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vice versa would be more reasonable I think - as used for the US states, and for the same reason (us non Canadians aren't expected to know what code is used for each province (is Yukon Territory YU, YK, or YT?). And I don't think any of them are likely to be confused with other place names. A count-up might be a good idea first (sigh)... I suspect it might be worthwhile keeping the maritimes as one category, too. Give me a few days to do a partial count at least - it's possible it may be like the US, where some states have virtually no stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{motorbike-stub}}

I've come across one or two motorbike stubs, and I'm not at all sure what to do with them. Is road-stub the catch-all here? Seems a bit too general, and also not a good fit for "sports bikes". Any idea how populated a separate category would be likely to get? Alai 02:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I proposed this one in about February or March (It'll be in the archives somewhere), but ISTR we could only find about ten of them then (there may be more now). There's still a list of a handful of them on my talk page if you want to see how many you can find. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Newly-discovered stub categories

I'm adding this section in because it seems that there are new stubs being created that we don't get officially told about here. Some of them are worth keeping and therefore won't be listed under "proposed deletions", but they hardly count as "proposed new stubs" either. But they should be listed somewhere... Grutness|hello?   Good idea. Courtland 23:15, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

{{torture-stub}}

No articles associated with it, and no category created. It probably should be TFD'd unless anyone suggests that it is useful. BlankVerse ∅ 02:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominated at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 06:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{liberalparty-stub}}

Not on the stub types list. It also doesn't have its own stub category, and feeds into both Category:Party related stubs and Category:Liberal related stubs. If we decide to keep it (a great humber of articles link to it), we should make a decision if this sort of categorization is a good thing or not. On a related note, {{liberal-stub}} is double categorized too, but with Category:Liberal related stubs and Category:Politics stubs, which is clearly redundant - the latter is the parent category of the former. I propose creating a category for {{liberalparty-stub}}, and removing Category:Politics stubs from {{liberal-stub}} (adjusting the wording of the stub message accordingly) -- grm_wnr Esc 05:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good title - several countries have parties called the "Liberal Party" - not all of which have "liberal" policies (and deciding what is a liberal policy is pretty POV anyway - liberal in US politics is still fairly conservative by Scandinavian or New Zealand standards, for instance). Don't like it. Grutness|hello?   07:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The way the categorisation has been done is also pretty appalling, and is not in the least helpful. If no separate category was set up, then this should have been double stubbed. Now, of course, it's a case of trying to sift and sort through the "what links here" in an attempt to put things into a new category. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{2stub}}, {{3stub}}, {{Ad-stub}}, {{Award-stub}}

With one of the recent changes in the WikiMedia software, you can now search just the Template namespace. You can use the following link to start at what I think is the beginning: All pages (Template namespace) - starting at "!". I've checked the first two pages-worth, from Template:- to Template:Basilan. I then checked any stub templates I didn't recognize against the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. I found the following "unlisted" stubs (although I think some else has already found and mentioned template:2stub.

Template:2stub would have been a great idea if there had been enough planning at the beginning so that template names matched category names. Unfortunately very few do, so the template absolutely must be deleted to prevent its misuse. Template:3stub is a weird orphan created by an anon and can be deleted. The award-stub should also be deleted with the articles moved into more appropriate categories (film-stub, lit-stub, etc.) (I found a very long list of awards List of prizes, medals, and awards, and although the few articles that I checked all needed some work, I wouldn't have called any of them stubs).

If there was a generic buisiness-stub, the ad-stub would probably not be needed, but without it, there are probably enough advertising stubs that are currently"hiding" in other stub categories to make the ad-stub worthwhile, (although I would probably rename it to advert-stub). BlankVerse ∅ 08:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone contacted the creator of these stubs to let them know what's happening with the stubs, and to ask them to come here first before creating them? Actually, to answer my own question, it doesn't seem so. I'll contact SagaCity and Erebus555... Grutness|hello?   09:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Award-stub to the stub types listing. Courtland 16:11, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

I've just had a look at {{3stub}}... and since the text was US Department of Defence(DoD) Handbook Work Breakdown Structure I was bold and speedied it. I've put {{2stub}} on tfd. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was the tip of the iceberg

I've just gone through the whole of that list unearthed by BlankVerse... I think I need to go and have a lie down now. The following are 30 previously undiscovered stub templates:

stub template created by when no.of articles type of stubs any problems
{{Britcartoonist-bio-stub}} User: Steve block 1 May 1 (British cartoonists)
{{CP-stub}} User: Soman 2 May 50+ (Communist Party)
{{censorship-stub}} User: Tedius Zanarukando March 30 2 (Censorship) No category
{{chicago-stub}} User: Gerald Farinas April 18 7 (Chicago)
{{comicbookpub-stub}} User: Steve block 2 May 5 (Comics publishers) DELETED
{{Extended MEP-stub}} User: NoSoftwarePatents 12 April 30+ (MEPs) Duplicates existing category and template
{{Faroe-geo-stub}} User: Jogvanj 18 April 8 (Faroe Islands)
{{Fishing-stub}} User: Mayumashu 15 March 0 (Fishing) No category - weird construction from someone who doesn’t know how to make stub templates.
{{Furniture-stub}} User: Hailey C. Shannon 19 April 2 (Furniture)
{{Irc-stub}} User: 141.150.16.49 11 April 1 (IRC)
{{Kerala Geo Stub}} User: Chakravyuh 29 March 30+ (Kerala, India) Badly formed category
{{Knot-stub (mathematics)}} User: BoomHitch 20 March 3 (Knots) Duplicates "Knot"
{{LACMTA-stub}} User: Pacific Coast Highway 30 April 1 (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) No category
{{MDpolitician-stub}} User: Tomf688 9 April 50+ (Maryland Politicians)
{{MEast-stub}} User: BanyanTree 22 April 12 (Middle East)
{{Node/stub}} User: Node ue 18 October 2004 0 (-) Duplicates "Stub"
{{Paleoantropology-stub}} (sic) User: Nickshanks 27 April 1 (Palaeoanthropology) Misspelt, category not created
{{Pcb21 stub test}} User: Pcb21 (-) (-) in user space only; DELETED.
{{Ride-stub}} User: Hailey C. Shannon 21 April 7 (Amusement park rides)
{{Slang-stub}} User: Oklonia 20 March 0 (Slang) Badly formed category
{{Stateinsigniastub}} User: Patricknoddy 18 March 6 (State Insignia)
{{Stub2}} User: Marcus2 28 June 2004 7 (Section stub) Duplicates "Sectstub", no category
{{Stub3}} User: Marcus2 30 June 2004 3 (Section stub) Duplicates "Sectstub", no category
{{stubnotice}} User: Spencer195 9 Oct 2004 0 (Deprecated metatemplate)
{{Tourism-stub}} User: Hailey C. Shannon 21 April 5 (Tourism)
{{US-poli-stub}} User: The Tom 19 April 50+ (US politics)
{{User-stub}} User: TimMorris 10 April. (-) For use in Userspace only.
{{VRC-Stub}} User: Sgeo 27 December 2004 2 (VR)
{{Whedon-stub}} User: CheNuevara 26 Apr 11 (Whedonverse) Duplicates "Buffyverse"; redirected to {{Buffyverse-stub}}
{{Åland-stub}} User: Bbx 31 March 17 (Åland Island)

I was bold and speedied the clearly nonsense "Eszett-stub", and redirected "JP-stub" to "Japan-stub" and "Uncategorized stub" to "Stub".

I haven't got the will-power to even put these on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types tonight, let alone do anything about them. As I said - I'm going to have a bit of a lie down now. Grutness|hello?   11:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that when I posted my info that everyone would follow my example and do a couple of pages at a time. If everyone pitched in then it would all get sorted out in about a week. But no....someone had to go through a heroic effort and tackle it all at once (and present the results all nicely formatted as well). I don't know whether I should award you a Wikipedia:Barnstar or recommend that you seek psychiatic help. ;-)
the latter is probably more accurate :) Actually it was a distractor task - it was either that or wash a blanket a cat had thrown up on. (I know - too much information) Grutness|hello?  
It's interesting to see that a few of them a very new, but already well populated. It is also interesting to see that there are a couple of them that have been around for quite awhile (measured in wikinet time). Some of the templates sure have some really ugly names. BlankVerse ∅ 13:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them can be easily redirected (like the knot one and the MEP one) Actally, the MEP one's template wording is better than on the standard template, so perhaps it's more a merge than a redirect. Some are empty so there shouldn't be much harm if they need to be deleted. Others will cause more problems. But quite a few are useful enough anyway (even if their names are often fairly poor - I'd never have guessed CP was about communism, for instance). The thing now, of course, is to work out which is which. FWIW I'd vote
  • keep: CP, ride, tourism, MEast, US-poli
  • redirect/merge: MEP, LACMTA, Irc, Whedon
  • delete: Slang, Stub3, fishing, Paleoantropology
And would be undecided about the others Grutness|hello?   01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CP-stub should probably be renamed. I would also rename MEast-stub to MidEast-stub. BlankVerse ∅ 07:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEast keeps it in line with {{MEast-geo-stub}}... (MidEast to me always sounds like the area from Indiana to Missouri :) Grutness|hello?   13:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies. I am behind Britcartoonist and comicbookpub. I'm also going to have to offer up, apologies here, {{Academic-bio-stub}}, which I created when accidentally not logged in, so it appears under my IP address of 84.92.54.229. I hadn't realised there was a procedure for creating stubs. I appear to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick somwhere, I didn't understand the meaning of the text on the people stubs category page. I never read stub categories, which seems a little foolish now. Apologies. Is it best to delete the comicbookpub stub and the britcartoonist stub and then have me propose them when I have enough stubs up to populate them? The academic bio stub is probably best merged elsewhere. Steve block 15:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Academic-bio-stub will definitely be useful (a very similar one is currently in the proposals, above, and this is a better name for it, so why make extra work by deleting and restarting? both comicbookpub and britcartoonist would probably be currently covered by comics-creator-stub. Personally, I'd suggest moving the articles there for now and - if necessary - splitting categories off it if it grows too large. Mind you, that might require some rewording of comics-creator-stub, since cartoons and comics are not identical. Grutness|hello?   23:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad Academic-bio-stub came in handy. The transfers from britcartoonist and comicbookpub have ben done, so how do I propose deleting them? As for cartoons and comics not being identical, they are, historically. Comics, shortened from comic strip collections, comic strip being another name for strip cartoon, meaning cartoons arranged in a sequence. The problem appears to be that the usage of the term cartoonist to apply to people working within the comic book industry is patchy. But that's a whole different argument that is fizzling over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics Steve block 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
as a matter of information, I've added {{Britcartoonist-bio-stub}} to the stub types page Courtland 02:47, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Not that it's relevant to the stub discussion, but thank's for the info on cartoons/comics (I was always under the impression that a cartoon was a single frame and a comic strip was, well, a strip, so it's good to know a bit more about the similariies and differences). Both include putting the category up for deletion at WP:CFD. The template, you can either put up for deletion at WP:TFD, or keep it, simply changing the text so that it redirects to comics-creator-stub. The latter has two advantages - you don't have to go through a template-for-deletion vote, and it's still available as a name if there's ever a reason to revive it. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have listed Category:British cartoonist stubs for deletion and will redirect template as suggested. Comic Book Publisher stub is already listed for deletion, as is its template. Thanks for your help. Steve block 19:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture-stub is a fairly good idea, I thought of creating that at least a couple of times while browsing the generic stub category. --Joy [shallot] 22:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC) It will ease the load of Category:Tools stubs. --Joy [shallot][reply]

A few more

I used another method, searching for "Stub" in the Template: namespace (like this: [2]). Here goes:

stub template created by when no.of articles type of stubs any problems
{{nintendo-stub}} User: Roadrunner3000 22 April 1 Nintendo  
{{digi-stub}} User: 210.0.177.84 19 April 4 Digimon Was seriously considered before, category doesn't exist (and is singular). UPDATE: Renamed the category as per convention, held creation though lest we want to delete or merge it.
{{hawaii-stub}} User: KeithH 2 April 3 Hawaii No category
{{californiastatehighway-stub}} User: Bennyp81 18 April 0 Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways malformed version of {{California_State_Highway_Stub}}, no category UPDATE: Redirected to {{California_State_Highway_Stub}}
{{unix-stub}} User: Cheezewizard 13 March 0 Unix Category doesn't exist
{{sect-num-stub}} User: AllyUnion 15 September 2004 ~20(?) (-) Special section stub. Has a variable to edit only the section it pertains to. I'm listing it here because it's nowhere on the stub types lists. UPDATE: Now listed on the complete stub type list.
{{star stub}} User: Jyril 23 February ~30(?) (-) Not a stub template. Evil and confusing, especially since {{star-stub}} is one. UPDATE: Proposed for renaming as {{starbox small}} at Astronomy wikiproject. Response so far is favourable. UPDATE2: This template, which eventually redirected to Template:Starbox short, was orphaned & deleted at TFD.

After Page 26, the search seems to break down. It shows more pages, but those don't give any results... This method of searching is also useful for finding stubs templates that still use {{metapicstub}} ([3]). I'll subst: those in when I find the time. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest to the Astronomers project that they rename "star stub" to "star box" - Grutness|hello?   06:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With the generous cooperation of WikiProject Astronomical objects, {{star stub}} is now called {{Starbox short}}, and the old name is listed at tfd. Grutness...wha? 12:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sect-num-stub had long existed as sectstub and was listed at the template list as such, and when I moved it I updated its listing over there. I didn't notice that it was missing elsewhere. Read the fine talk page :) --Joy [shallot] 22:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{GCS}} and {{GenericCountryStub}}

User:Coolcat has just created template:GCS and template:GenericCountryStub

{{GCS|Cuba}}

Template:GCS

{{GenericCountryStub|France}}

Template:GenericCountryStub

Template:GenericCountryStub calls Template:GenericCountryStubDetail (which also has a redirect from Template:GCSD). This design assumes that all France stubs are in Category:France stubs, rather than Category:France-related stubs (and doesn't take into account that there are other country stubs that are not neatly named). He's even added to one article (Jinetera).

In checking the Jintera article, I ended up discovering that when User:Rdsmith4 created the template:cuba-stub, that he created neither a category:Cuba stubs (which template is currently designed for) nor a category:Cuba-related stubs. Do we need to check all the stubs not created by WP:WSS to verify that a category was created? BlankVerse ∅ 03:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wahooboy we're going to lose a lot of stubs into the void this way quickly! There are about 100 countries which do not have generic stub categories, for the simple reason that the countries have not got enough stubs. If it were possible to vote "even-faster-than-speedy delete" on this one I would. Grutness|hello?   05:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As you can see by the too verbose TFD templates that have been added, all of these templates, subtemplates, and redirects have now been nominated at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 06:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER NOTE: As you can also see by those splashes of blood-like red above, they have now been deleted! Grutness...wha? 12:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{MTR stub}} and {{KCR stub}}

Two new stubs on different Hong Kong transportation networks, created by our old friend Instantnood. Surely these would better have been served by a single template/category, rather than two separate ones? Also the names are not that hot - firstly the TLAs mean different things in different countries (I instantly wondered why the Motor Traders Association should have a stub category), and secondly, there's no hyphen, so that's another blow against the hoped-for uniformity. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first was created by User:PZFUN, and the latter by User:Secfan. I guess neither of them have ever been involved in this WikiProject. The two stub templates are for anything related to the two metro networks, the light rail network by KCRC, property development (e.g. housing blocks, shopping centres) and anything else related to the two companies (e.g. investment overseas). Basically almost all stations are still stubs, but not all of them have been tagged with one of the two templates. — Instantnood 08:51, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for the misattribution (you must have added the categories later, I think...). Still think they'd have done better with one template covering both, though. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered the MTR template with no category (not the one for KCR), and therefore I created it. — Instantnood 12:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

{{Canada-poli-stub}}

Found: template and category for Canada politics stubs

Created: 20 April 2005

Creator: User:The_Tom

I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types

Courtland 11:27, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

{{Cartoon-stub}}

Found: template and category for Cartoon-related stubs

Created: 28 April 2005

Creator: [4]

I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types

Courtland 11:48, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I see problems with this one. "cartoon" could mean things currently covered by comics-stub, or things currently covered by animation-stub. In whichever case, it's already covered, and whichever case, it's ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 11:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness. The articles here should be moved to either animation-stub or comics-stub, depending on relevance, and the category should probably be proposed for deletion. Steve block 19:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs

This is a category without template; I've added this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types page. Courtland 10:00, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

no no! There are several like that in the geography section! They are simply meant to hold other groups of categories, without having any articles in them (Category:Americas geography stubs is another one like that). If you put them on the stub tupes table, it will suggest to people that we want articles put in there (which we don't - everything is already covered by subcategories). Grutness...wha? 14:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've rectified this, as well as putting a paragraph in the introductory material, primarily for reference purposes. Courtland 18:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Looks good - well done. I added Americas-geo up there too. Grutness...wha? 02:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{BBC-stub}}

Created by Steinsky, and well populated with things that should be marked {{station-stub}}, {{radio-stub}}, {{tvseries-stub}}... cuts across the hierarchy very thoroughly, in fact. Grutness...wha? 14:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this one because I think in this category articles are more likely to get dealt with and expanded. Almost all articles in this category will not be known by non-Brits, so non-Brits looking through the categories listed in the OP will not be able to expand them. On the other hand few Brits will be interested in trawling through the other categories looking for things they've heard of. An alternative would be UK-tv-stub and UK-radio-stub, I marginally prefer it as it is, but wouldn't object to moving to that system if others preferred it. Joe D (t) 14:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking out UK-tvstation-stub, UK-radio-stub and UK-tvseries-stub (and the US equivalents) was actually something that was on my list of things to suggest (they would have been suggested by now if not for problems with the recently named railway station stub categories). They would make far more sense, since British TV editors would also be far more likely to know about ITV/Channel 4/independent radio-related items, and - since some TV shows have been known to switch between stations - it would make more sense to categorise things in that way. It would also have avoided cutting across the current categories. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engr-stub

Created on May 7 by User:Kmweber to be used with engineering stubs - already pretty much covered by industry-stub. Since then three stubs have been added to the category. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to industry stub - category going on cfd. Grutness...wha? 21:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Industry-stub now points to Category:Engineering stubs, due to an recent edit from User:Hydrargyrum. Currently I can't revert this, as all edits to it fail. If anyone else is having more luck, or has a clearer idea what's going on, please have a look. Alai 21:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now fixed, though after about 20 attempts. Very odd. Alai 22:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iran-stub

Newly created by User:Pouya. Only two articles at present, but likely to get plenty more. Don't see too many problems with this one. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film-bio-stub and Military-bio-stub

Newly created by User:Fingers-of-Pyrex and User:Oven Fresh respectively. Both should be well-populated, although I see a problem with the first opne, since people who don't know may well put actor-stubs in there. I suspect it needs tweaking a little to avoid that happening. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Soviet-stub}}

I was about to propose this one, and was surprised that it was already there. It's a recent creation, and I think it will be quite useful. A2Kafir 20:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this stub, but I do apologize for not at least suggesting this beforehand. If this is approved by yall, which I do not think there is a problem, I suggest that it should be moved to the history section. Since Nazi Germany is already there, it would be a nice fit for this sub, since it is about a historical country. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should have guessed :) Looks like a useful stub, but - as with nazi-stub - beware of places where it overlaps {{WWII-stub}}! Grutness...wha? 02:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can use the war stub for the WW2 stuff. Pretty much whatever the Nazi Germany template covers for them, the Soviet template will do the same thing, except on Soviet topics. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{FR-actor-stub}}

(moved from "proposals", further up the page. Thinking there are a lot more French actors not listed or categorized properly, I created the Category:French actor stubs on 20 MAY 2005, it has 78 articles, I went through all of Category:French actors and updated them. So now there is now a {{FR-actor-stub}}. Hopefully there is a consensus, after the fact. <> Who 01:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't - this was already discussed recently. In any case, the name, if it is as you have listed it here, is not standard (it should be France-actor-stub). Please do not use this stub for now, since it will, at the very least, need to be renamed. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I was wrong on the numbers - at the time we counted them there were only about 40, but you've found close to 80, so it will probably be useful. I've moved the template to {{France-actor-stub}} - please use that instead of FR-actor-stub (another one to unload, Courtland?). But in future, please propose new stubs here rather than creating them and letting us know later! Grutness...wha? 07:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Who is also responsible for AU-actor-stub, SE-actor-stub, and AU-bio-stub. I've moved the first two to {{Australia-actor-stub}} and {{Sweden-actor-stub}}, and the third is already listed as a proposed deletion. I'm also listing the (now) redirects SE-actor-stub, FR-actor-stub, and AU-actor-stub on tfd. The new names are still there for the stubs, but these names are not consistent with any we use. Lord save us from people trying to help. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - forgot to update this... SE-actor-stub, FR-actor-stub, AU-bio-stub and AU-actor-stub have all been deleted Grutness...wha? 10:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nepal-stub? (*never existed!)

{{Nepal-stub}} has just appeared on the Stub type list - as a redlink. Apparently it (whatever it is) is on one article. The listing was put there by User: Common Man, whose user contribs list no templates. Not sure exactly what's going on with this, but I've asked him to answer a few questions relating to this one here - hopefully we'll hear from himsoon... Grutness...wha? 02:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I've caused you any problem; I don't know what templates are. I just found (through the random page feature) this page about Osho tapoban and when I looked in the stub list for the right stub I noticed that the Asia section does not have an entry for Nepal. I think it should, and I wanted to help, so I created one. Sorry again, and feel free to do whatever you want with the stub and the page. Common Man 04:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... well, first things first - as I explained on your user page, going through this page and proposing a template first is the best idea, since it is a requirement to have a large number of stubs before a template is made. At the moment, that's unlikely to be the case with Nepal. it's not really a case of what should have a stub because it's a worthy topic, it's more a case of what has enough stubs to make it worthwhile to make a separate category for editors.
As to what templates are (and forgive me if I get the terminally competely wrong - I know little about the workings of computers, the web, or wikis), they are a specific type of page that can be added into an article in the form of a label. They have to be separately created before use. So you would have needed to create the template before you added it onto that article. They are created by calling the page "Template:xxx", where xxx is the name you want for the template, instead of simply "xxx". Then, when you want to add the template to an article, you add {{xxx}} to the article.
In this particular case, the article is related to a specific settlement in Nepal, and therefore qualifies as a geography stub. There aren't enough geography items on Nepal to really require a separate category (on May 1 there were 26 of them), so they are categorised as Asia geography stubs, using {{Asia-geo-stub}}. If there ever get to be considerably more (usually a lower limit of somewhere betwen 60 and 100), then it will be worth creating a new category, but for now it's not really worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Journalist-stub}}

This has apparently been around for about a month. Looks like it may be of use. --Allen3 talk 18:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Stubberg, Pt. 3

Umm, yes there are quite a few new ones.

stub template created by when no.of articles type of stubs any problems
{{seminary-stub}} User: Kmweber 7 May 1 Seminaries One supercategory of the stub category doesn't exist.
{{model-stub}} User: DNewhall 12 May 2 Models No stub category. Was actually listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs.
{{parasite-stub}} User: Happyfeet10 12 May 2 Parasitism Feeds into Category:Science stubs. Was also listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs.
{{judi-stub}} User: Mike Storm 13 May 1 Judicials Category not created.
{{monorail-stub}} User: 144.139.89.214 17 May 1 Monorails Category not created.
{{afl-stub}} User: The Brain of Morbius 19 May 4 Australian rules football  
{{occult-stub}} User: 67.51.137.39 7 May 34 Magic (paranormal)  
{{developer-stub}} User: 207.177.241.28 11 May 0 MSDN Category not created, malformed HTML, exceptionally badly named.
{{MSDN-stub}} User: 207.177.241.28 11 May 0 MSDN Category not created, malformed HTML. Yes, exactly the same as above, only with a better name.
{{bike-stub}} User: Happyfeet10 12 May 2 Bicycling or Bicycles Feeds directly into Category:Transportation. Listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs.
{{FR-stub}} User: Erolos 16 May 11 Forgotten Realms  
{{nbc-stub}} User: Roadrunner3000 19 May 0 National Broadcasting Corporation  
{{fo-stub}} User: Quackor 22 May 20 Faroe Islands Complements {{faroe-geo-stub}}
{{Vietnam-War-stubs}} User: Sherurcij 9 May 1 Vietnam War No category, template name is plural.
{{Vietnam-war-stub}} User: *Kat* 22 May 0 Vietnam War The previous one done right.
{{Anti-semitism-stub}} User: Firebug 8 May 0 Antisemitism Category not created.
{{film director stub}} User: Paulo Oliveira 20 May 46 film directors No hyphens, but genuinely useful.
{{Arizona State Route Stub}} User: Atanamir 16 May 7 Arizona State Routes No hyphens, unconventional layout.
{{medicalstub}} User: Patricknoddy 21 May 1 "medical-related" No category, no links.
{{Pakistan-econ-stub}} User: Egalitus 13 May 5 Pakistani economy Two categories, one specific one and its parent Category:Economics and finance stubs
{{SA Route Stub}} User: PZFUN 7 May LOTS South African Regional Routes Two categories,the ones from SA-stub and road-stub
{{Indian-movie-stub}} User: DuKot 15 May 2 Indian movies Feeds into film-stub category

I also added {{Uncategorized stub}}, a harmless redirect to {{stub}}, to the stub types list. We need SfD. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and fast! Whoof. Okay. here's mytake on a few of these:
  • Occult stub - duplicates magic-stub and para-stub. delete
  • model-stub - ambiguous. Starlets or aircraft? - rename, at the very least
  • Parasite-stub - fits nicely alongside things like bacteria-stub in bio-sci.. keep
  • fo-stub - "sits alongside faroe-geo-stub... yes it does, but not with that name! rename as Faroe-stub
  • the Vietnam war ones - we were discussing creating this recently. Vietnam-war-stub is the better named one. The other one can go, since it's not used.
  • Anti-semitism-stub. Sigh. Not needed - covered by socio-stub (except when it's obviously something like a nazi-stub)
  • FR-stub - badly named, as the tfd-candidates FR-actor-stub and FR-bio-stub (for France) show. delete or at least rename
  • developer-stub and MSDN-stub. Trust a developer to get it wrong :). Aren't these already covered by various other stubs?
  • Judi-stub - covered by law-stub delete
  • Monorail-stub - covered by rail-stub delete
  • medicalstub - already covered, and this is badly named. delete
Perhaps if we really flood TFD and CFD with templates, then sfd will go ahead! Grutness...wha? 01:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion re-the stubberg

It seems we now have about 70-odd stubs found in the last month or so. I've made it fairly clear about several of them I like or dislike (both immediately above and in the list at proposed deletions), but we should having some form of debate both about them and about the others, too. I propose that - as a temporary measure, at least until we get some sort of order out of all this mess - we make a (yet another) sub-page simply listing all of them, and do a simple one-week keep/rename/redirect/delete vote on each one, keeping discussion minimal. That will at least purge the list of ones that no-one sees worthy of saving, tell us which ones should definitely be kept, and show us which ones need further, more detailed, debate here. Is this worth doing, or is it just another level of bureaucracy? Grutness...wha? 03:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netball-stub

Just discovered that {{netball-stub}} has been added to the list at WP:WSS/ST. Fits in with the hierarchy and naming standards, but I doubt it will get more than 20 or 30 stubs, if that. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{malta-geo-stub}}

Sigh. there are currently only 26 Malta geography stubs, but that didn't deter the creation of this template. I added a category to it (it didn't have one - sigh again). Grutness...wha? 08:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of lang-stub

I note that someone (who by the looks of it knows about linguistics) has split Language stub into four subcategories. Waaay beyond my expertise to know about this, so I'll pass on other comments, other than to say that they're all made with lower-case letters for proper nouns... Grutness...wha? 00:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And now there's another one! What is going on here? Grutness...wha? 09:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops... Mustafaa and I have been talking about this because {{lang-stub}} had become to big a subcategory to be usable (see User talk:Mustafaa#New stub category?). Then we went ahead and just created some of the more obviously needed ones (such as {{nc-lang-stub}}, which has absorbed at least 100 plain lang-stubs). I added them at WP:WSS/ST because I found a stub category tree there. I also told Ish ishwar about it, who subsequently created {{na-lang-stub}} and filled it with at least 200 stubs.
To be clear, all three of us are linguists and I think it is clear that splitting up according to language family is the best way to make language stubs more accessible. But I gather that we should've followed another procedure? I'm sorry about that... — mark ✎ 12:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Having myself an idea ogf the size of lang-stub (easilu over 1000 pre-splitting), the split is far from inapropriate, and possibly the less controversial so far, even though It didn't go through a formal WSS-sanctionned process.Circeus 14:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I was unaware of this procedure - sorry about that - but agreed with Mark D that lang-stub desperately needed to be split to be more manageable. - Mustafaa 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Given the size of the category, it is appropriate to split it, and it's good to have someone who knows what they're doing making the split - but it would be good to know how many sections there are going to be (I note no split of Pacific island languages yet, for instance). There are not solid policies on "needing permission" here, but all stub-related pages strongly advise keeping us stub-sorters very much "in the loop" (after all, we need to know where to sort the stubs to!), and there are also a few guidelines of when to split (minimum number of stubs required, way to name categories and templates, etc). Grutness...wha? 02:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the minimum number of stubs — yeah, I decided not to create something like {{ks-lang-stub}} for Khoi-San languages because we never would have more than say 60 articles on Khoi-San languages anyway. Prime candidates for other categories would be Austronesian (1268 languages according to Ethnologue), Sino-Tibetan (>400), and Papuan languages (>500) (the latter is not a genetic unit but it is a commonly used term for non-Austronesian, non-Australian languages in the Papua area). I'm sure I missed a few, but I don't think there are going to be much more than these. — mark ✎ 12:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But now concerning the naming... unfortunately, we used lowercase characters for words that are normally capitalized — na for 'Native American', aa for Afro-Asiatic, nc for Niger-Congo', etc. Do we need to do anything about that? I'm sure the three of use don't feel like going through a hundreds of articles again just to change the capitalization — but maybe there is a bot that could do this sort of work, I don't know. The question is also relevant WRT the creation of new categories: should we keep everything lowercase now for consistency or should we go back and start all over again, this time without a false start? — mark ✎ 18:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If that's the way they're normally abbreviated by linguists, then personally I don't think it's that necessary - it's really to stop things like Sa-stub and Uk-stub (for South Africa and the UK respectively) which turned up a while ago. Grutness...wha? 19:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not that linguists don't use capitals, I guess it was more because most uses of plain lang-stub I encountered were also lowercase... — mark ✎ 20:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the split is handled very well - but I'll add a little caveat here: Since these distinctions are fairly specialist-orientated, you'll probably have to watch {{lang-stub}} and subsort it yourselves. It's easy to sort the stubs properly if the articles note the language family, however, since they are stubs, they often do not - at least not properly. I, for one, welcome our new language stub-sorting overlords will sort them into lang-stub if I'm not sure about the language family. Oh, and please list any subdivisions of stub categories on the category's article part in the future. I already listed the present ones on Category:Language stubs. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That should be OK. I've sorted most of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan myself since it is very convenient to be able to look after them this way, and I'm sure other linguists will think the same way about it. I'll put a notice at the talk pages of the respective language families and at WikiProject Languages to that end. — mark ✎ 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See WP:WSS/ST, {{au-lang-stub}} & Category:Austronesian language stubs & Talk:Austronesian languages, {{st-lang-stub}} & Category:Sino-Tibetan language stubs & Talk:Sino-Tibetan languages. — mark ✎ 23:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cuba-stub

Created a month ago - it had three stubs in it, two of which were geo-stubs. The name fits into the hierarchy nicely, but I doubt it will get the necessary 60+ stubs in it! Grutness...wha? 04:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Botany-stub

I would like to see a Botany stub to get many of those articles out of the general Biosci-stub cat (which is getting very large). It would make them easier to find so I can work on them and de-stub them. What do I need to do to make this new stub category? --DanielCD 21:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, there's already one, it was just well-hidden. Now how do I get a cute lil' icon put in? --DanielCD 21:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't  :) We're currently trying to get rid of them, at least until the server problems are fixed. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's ok. We can live without 'em. ;)--DanielCD 02:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Ratu-stub}} for Fiji people

Found: template and category for stubs related to people from Fiji

Created: 5 May 2005

Creator: David Cannon

I've added this to the Stub types listing. The category was created with out boilerplate, so I added that. Currently the category has 21 people in it.

Courtland 02:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Though I can understand the name, it's a very poor one to use (it would be like having "Sir-stub" for British people). If we're going to keep it, I'd sugggest redirecting it to {{Fiji-bio-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Courtland 02:45, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Done. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{mv-stub}}

Lousy name... guess before I tell you. Motor vehicles? No. Movies? No. The Maldives! Currently has eight stubs, and I'd doubt it could get near 100. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. {{Mv-stub}} was created because for singapore-related articles, there is a template called {{sg-stub}}. The reason for creating {{Mv-stub}} is, Maldivian wiki-contributors are relatively small (some 20?, pretty low wikiholic level). The idea of this template is to list all Maldive-related artilces under the category Maldives and expose the artilces to this small community, inorder to speedy-expand them. Also i did read the policy on creation of the new-stub, but got kinda confused. Asked for help in #wikipedia in IRC but there wasn't any response --Oblivious 09:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sg-stub was created before this WikiProject began, and is one that we haven't yet managed to get round to renaming (note that singapore-stub does the same job), although our naming guidelines page lists it as a poor choice of name. As to the rest of the points, I've replied on your user talk page already, but - briefly - IRC was not a good place to ask, and there are far easier ways to alert other Maldivians than by creating a stub template. Grutness...wha? 09:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah I think the idea you suggested in my talk page is much better to expose these articles to the relavent community. --Oblivious 09:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{webcomic-stub}}

This stub is for webcomics. Examples are in these two articles, and some websites. pockethouse is a website with multiple comics. bob and george is a video game based webcomic that has been running for over five years. VG Cats is a webcomic based on wideo games as well. Sluggy Freelance is credited as the first webcomic, and has been running for eight years. Those are some examples, one might find some more.

Um... this one has been known for a while and is on the main stub-list at WP:WSS/ST. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{BDSM-stub}}

Not sure about this one. I can see the reason for the separate template and category (I had to create the category, BTW, since it wasn't there), {{sex-stub}} is only on about 200 articles. There are a considerable number of articles that could go in the BDSM stub category (at a cursory glance I'd say 30 or so, but I'm a bit embarrassed to list them here!), but the edge (if you'll pardon the term) is a bit vague - some articles like Fire play, Switch (sexuality), and Bizarre (fetish magazine) are somewhere between BDSM and general fetishism, so we'd want to know where to, um, draw the line. Other than that, I don't see any harm in this stub category. Grutness...wha? 13:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (the things you end up writing about in Wikipedia...)

(this arrived at almost the same time...) This stub was added to WP:WSS/ST. It is used by only one article. It has a redlink category. (This should possibly be moved to the proposals section ...) --TheParanoidOne 13:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(then this was posted at the bottom of the page)I just spotted that I didn't follow process in creating Template:BDSM-stub; I just thought that I might make a case for it -- if you look at the sex-stub articles, a great many of them (30% or more?) appear to be on specfically BDSM topics, which I thought was enough to create a new stub category. In my opinion, BDSM is probably specialized enough to have a stub category of its own, as a subcategory of the overall sex category. Please remove it if you disagree. -- Karada 13:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Anarchism-stub}}

This one was debated briefly a couple of months ago with no overall decision, but it's been created anyway, and seems fairly well populated (30-40 stubs). The irony of course, given the subject, is that it's been categorised perfectly and fits neatly into the hierarchy of stub categories. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed stub deletions

Categories that include others should not be deleted: there will always be articles we can't fit anywhere precisely


{{AU-bio-stub}}

This category for "Australian people stubs" was just recently created, but there's already {{Australia-bio-stub}}, which is full of stubs, whereas this new one has zero. Hathawayc 01:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

{{List-stub}}

I believe incomplete lists should have the {{listdev}} marking on them instead of being put in a category. Hathawayc 02:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Waay ahead of you! The category's on Cfd, and list-stub itself is a redirect! Grutness...wha? 02:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Importantstub}} plus its redirect {{Important-stub}}

Although these template stubs have been mentioned here in the past, no action was taken. Well I got tired of seeing them added to articles like Toilet training, so they have now been nominated at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 05:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{2stub}}

I did the same with this one, which had been mentioned in the past as requiring deletion pretty quickly. Thatwas about a month ago... Grutness...wha? 05:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{kiwi-stub}}

This links to New Zealand stubs, which is good, but...kiwi-stub? Last time I checked there was no alternative stub or redirect for New Zealand related stubs. *Kat* 06:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't. Sigh - this had to happen eventually... this is the first template I ever made - long before I knew the naming standards. I'd suggest making {{NZ-stub}} and redirecting kiwi-stub to it, until such time as the population of kiwi-stub drops (currently there are a couple of hundred of them). At least try to keep my kiwi icon :) Grutness...wha? 06:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOL, of all the people. Why did you call it Kiwi-stub? *Kat* 07:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Us New Zealanders call ourselves Kiwis. Just seemed to make sense at the time. :) I'll move kiwi-stub to NZ-stub - that'll make kiwi-stub a redirect. Grutness...wha? 08:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting to know! Why do y'all do that? BTW: I have family in Perth, Australia, ever been there? *Kat* 00:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Because it's the national bird, and one of NZ's three national symbols (along with the silver fern and Southern Cross constellation). It would be a bit like a US sports team calling themselves "The American Eagles", which I'm pretty sure has happened... Never been to Perth - then again, it's a long way from New Zealand (about 4000 miles from here). Grutness...wha? 02:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the US rugby (union) team does just that (or has done, on occasion). Alai 00:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - yes... that'll be where I've heard it. Grutness...wha? 12:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

several from the "Iceberg" (above)

Unless there are any objections, I would like to propose the following nine (!) stub deletions: Grutness...wha? 07:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Paleoantropology-stub}}

used on 1 article. No associated category. Misspelt.

Empty now Grutness...wha? 05:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Knot-stub (mathematics)}}

used on 3 articles. Duplicates {{Knot-stub}}, and feeds into the same category.

Now emptied and turned into a redirect. But still too horribly named to survive, IMHO. Grutness...wha? 10:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Slang-stub}}

used on no articles. Duplicates {{Vocab-stub}}. Simply feeds into Category:Slang.

  • Sombody has recently removed this stub from articles because I've used it to tag several articles in the last couple of days. I'm sure that there are easily 50-100 stubs that are slang, not including the slang that in other areas like internet slang. BlankVerse ∅ 09:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed it from the one solitary article that was in its "what links here" list (Munchies, IIRC), because I thought it should have gone somewhere with a specific category, and it was as much a vocab-stub as a slang-stub). If you stubbed more than one, then someone else must have moved the others. If you think it's worth keeping, then feel free to add (*keep) next to this section title, though - there are enough stub types on this list that even if half of them are wanted by someone there will still be five to take over to tfd next week. Grutness...wha? 14:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fishing-stub}} (*keep and clean up)

used on no articles. No associated category and clearly created by someone who hasn't a clue how stubs work. See for yourself!

{{Node/stub}}

used on no articles. Duplicates {{stub}}. No associated category.

{{Stub2}} and {{stub3}}

used on 7 and 3 articles respectively. Duplicate {{sectstub}}. No associated category. (Not to be confused with the tfd {{2stub}} and deleted {{3stub}}!).

Both now emptied and (temporarily) changed into redirects to {{sectstub}}. Grutness...wha? 06:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Stubnotice}}

used on no articles. Deprecated metatemplate.

{{Whedon-stub}} *keep as converted to redirect*

used on 15 articles. Duplicates {{Buffyverse-stub}}.

  • It is possible that consensus to move {{Buffyverse-stub}} to {{Whedonverse-stub}} might emerge. I've seen "Whendonverse" used here based on the argument that it's more comprehensive than "Buffyverse" with respect to his work. Courtland 23:01, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
    • If you feel that would be a better term, then go for it. It would make sense, although the casual stub sorter may not know that Whedon created Buffy. Buffyverse does sound as though it limits it to just BTVS and not also the likes of Angel. BTW, since there are so many of these listed here, if you feel that debate on any of them is moving towards a consensus of keep, feel free to add that to the title (e.g., ===="{{Whedon-stub}} *keep====), and I'll remember not to add it to tfd. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be a good idea to keep as a redirect as a contingency for now; if this is ok, then I'll a) re-stub the 15 articles, b) update the Stub Types page and c) update the redirect listing, labeling this as a permanent (i.e. not to be deleted at earliest convenience, but maybe later). Courtland 14:46, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • Fine by me. Grutness...wha? 15:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just did the redirection. Courtland 04:43, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

{{Censorship-stub}}

10 articles, no category.

Category added by Erebus555 however will need refreshing and can be deleted.

{{Cartoon-stub}}

I've just been through this, looking at what was in there - what a mess! I emptied out 16 stubs, which now have {{animation-stub}} (6); {{anime-stub}} (3); {{Disney-stub}} (1); {{comics-stub}} (3); {{tvseries-stub}} (2); and {{ad-stub}} (1). It's now empty, and since it plays havoc with the hierarchy (it slices! It dices!), I suggest getting rid of it. Any objections? Comments? Grutness...wha? 08:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to deleting it. Steve block 13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The title and concept are common enough that it might be recreated at any time, several times. If you agree with that, then it might be wise to keep it around as a redirect (recalling the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" saying), probably pointing at {{animation-stub}}. This allows the semantics of the template to be controlled by association. Courtland 01:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. As the above emptying showed, it links more to animation-stub than to any of the others. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm kind of worried about equating cartoon with animation, but yes, I agree that that's probably the practical solution.Steve block 08:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is a bit of a kludge, but sadly there's no such thing as a disambiguation template! Grutness...wha? 08:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Substubs

The substub template and category are (at last!) up for deletion at tfd and cfd. If you have any comments to make either way on the subject, please do so (there, not here). Grutness...wha? 01:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RIP

Ladies and gentlemen, the Substub is dead. Long live the glorious stub category revolution! Grutness...wha? 02:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The China-Taiwan mess

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive5.

Odd happenings with Ethno-stub

For some reason, Stevertigo recently decided to redirect Ethno-stub to Ethnic-stub, then delete the original 9which was still used on over 200 articles) without either telling us or announcing the proposed deletion on tfd. The only clue as to what may have been going on was wording on Category:Ethnicity stubs, which suggested using the two different stubs for two different but related subjects - ethnicity and ethnic groups. But if they were intended to be two different templates, a combination of redirect and deletion indicates the opposite, that there was no plan to keep ethno-stub. I've left an (adnittedly grumpy) note on Stevertigo's page. If he plans to make any more such inexplicable changes, maybe next time he'll let us know first. Grutness...wha? 06:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria&oldid=15101465"