Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caerwine (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 13 October 2005 (→Writer Stubs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category

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

Proposing new stubs - procedure

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


Proposals, July 2005

New album stubs

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

{{album-stub}} is getting very large now and I believe it should be split into more sub categories such as rock-album-stub or rap-album-stub. For the time being it should be split into very general groups so that we don't have a stub which will only get one page such as thrash-metal-stub. I believe the main categories should be:

  • Country-album-stub
  • Rock-album-stub
  • Rap-album-stub
  • RnB-album-stub
  • Dance-album-stub
  • Classical-album-stub

There might be more that could be added which I have not thought up yet but what do you tihnk? -(Erebus555 09:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

First it might be useful to determine what will get an album off the stub list. Most of the album articles I've seen say "X is an album by Y" and give a tracklist. In a majority of cases I don't see much chance they'll ever develop beyond that. Who's going to page through all the country-album-stubs, say, and expand those articles? There isn't much to say about most albums. What say we restrict the stub tag to those which just have the first sentence but no track list? There's a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums with their own cleanup template, {{album}}.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]



{{labor-bio-stub}}

I just started at this stub-sorting project and the first person I pick, Albert Shanker, is a labor organizer. Shouldn't there be a bio stub for labor leaders? –Shoaler (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. If there were, then something like Unionist-bio-stub would be a better name, since labout is a word that varies spelling between North American English and Rest-of-the-world English (Australia, being weird, uses both spellings for two different things). Also several countries have political parties called Labour, so you might end up getting MPs in there too. Not sure how many articles there'd be, but there may well be enough for a separate stub. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unionist would not be a good name for it because Unionist also has many different meanings, including the name of some Northern Ireland political parties and I agree that Labor/Labour should be avoided for the same reason. How many articles are there which would be stubbed with this, out of interest? -- Joolz 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about the Ulster Unionists... If it goes ahead, would {{Union-bio-stub}} get around the name problem? Or would that be too ambiguous? Grutness...wha? 13:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Union-bio would get round it yeah :) -- Joolz 17:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to think that the {{Union-bio-stub}} was about people on the Union side in War of Northern Agression. :) Caerwine 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like {{laborunion-bio-stub}}? It's longer, but it's probably less ambiguous. --Mairi 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not only back at the labour/labor, but manage yet another US-centric proposed name even aside from that, since the UK term (at least) is Trade Union. - SoM 15:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about having these go into the {{activist-stub}} proposal way down below with an option to split off if there are enough as {{worker-activist-stub}}? I'll grant that it's a bit wordy and nonintuitive, but it does avoid the problems with both "labo[u]r" and "Union". Caerwine 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposals, August 2005

Stub confusion: Broadcast and TV stubs

From what I can tell from looking at the articles in the various broadcast and TV categories, many other editors are as confused about what should go into the different categories as I am, and looking at the information on the category pages does not provide any enlightenment IMHO. Seeing that there are 7 pages of TV stubs, and over 500 articles just in US broadcasting stubs, I think that a major reorganization may be in order. Here's just a rough idea of what I was thinking should be done:

  • TV stations
  • TV shows
  • TV biographies
  • Radio stations
  • Radio programs
  • Radio biographies
  • Cable & satellite channels
  • Cable & satellite shows
  • Broadcast networks (any network--TV, radio, cable, etc.)

Many of these categories should get US & UK subcategories, and some may even need Canadian, Australian, EU, and Asian subdivisions. Many of the specialty broadcasting stubs (e.g. Star Trek) can probably stay, but some may need some changes (such as the soap opera character stub, which I think could be broadened into a general soap opera stub). At the same time, the reorganization could be used to drop some of the less useful broadcast stubs. Eventually we'll probably need an internet radio and even a podcasting stub category added as well. BlankVerse ∅ 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea. Ceyockey started to work on this sort of thing before he left WP:WSS to concentrate on other areas. A few questions/suggestions:
  1. would it be better to expand the soapchar stub into any stub relating to a fictional TV character, rather than expanding it into Soap operas in general?
  2. do we need the separate tv and radio biography stubs - wouldn't a lot of the people in there be better fitted into other categories such as actor-stub?
  3. I'm not entirely convinced by the cable & satellite show stub category. A lot of shows created and shown on cable TV are shown on terrestrial tv in other countries (here in NZ we get both Deadwood and Six Feet Under on free-to-air terrestrial, for example, but I think both were cable productions). I think those two categories could be happily subsumed by the TV stations/TV shows parents.

Grutness...wha? 14:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Soap operas: I was only thinking that soap opera fans are just as fanatical as SF fans—they just haven't had time to invade the Wikipedia yet. Even if we don't have a general soap opera stub in the near future, I KNOW that we will have one eventually. I've got Sunset Beach in my watchlist only because it's based upon near where I grew up, and that show, which only lasted a couple of years, has gone from a sub-stub into a very long, involved explanation of all the soap opera machinations.

re:TV & radio bios: I was thinking that TV-bio would be everybody but the actors—i.e. news anchors, directors, writers, show creators, network executives, etc. As for radio personalities also being actors—that only happens here in LA (e.g. Steve Harvey, Gary Owens of Laugh-In, etc.).

re:cable shows: I did that out of symetry, but you are right. Even here in the US, there are cable shows that have a second life as on-air reruns, or are shown on both cable and as first-run syndication. BlankVerse ∅ 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on soap opera characters some more...it's probably best to leave that stub. I'm sure that eventually we will end up with a plethora of articles on soap opera characters, and although many of the articles will grow to the same size as many of the articles on characters in Frank Herbert's Dune, many more will remain lowly stubs. BlankVerse ∅ 13:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find remarkable is that there is no Category:Media stubs with matching template. This category could be a parent category to {{tv-stub}}, {{news-stub}}, {{broadcasting-stub}}, etc, and some kind of a doggybag for articles that fit in more than one of these stub categories. Aecis 14:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movie stubs

This idea has been debated here several times, but we've never reached a decision over it - we've had the ideas of splitting by genre, by decade, or by country of origin (some of the previous debate is in Archive 16. It really does need splitting though. if the main categories are most clearly split by genre, then perhaps that would be the best way. Perhaps
  • comedy-film-stub
  • drama-film-stub
  • sf-film-stub
  • biopic-film-stub
  • action-film-stub
would be five logical splits. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think : crime-film-stub would be useful, too Lectonar 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should start these stubs now! --SuperDude 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont't be hasty; give it a weeks time... :) Lectonar 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting {{UK-struct-stub}}

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

London and Scotland would remove two large sections, I think. Grutness...wha? 06:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking geographically but more sort of church-stub etc but London and Scotland would be good idea, yes! Morwen - Talk 09:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a London WikiProject, so that one's definitely worth considering. Separating out buildings by use is viable, though - although that would need to tie in with all the struct-stub categories, so might need more thought. I could see a series of UK-church-stub, US-church-stub etc, and also UK-stadium-stub, Euro-stadium-stub, etc. The church one might be difficult, though, since it would be best if it covered all places of worship, not just Christian ones, so the naming of it might be a problem. I'd definitely go with London-struct-stub though - buildings by type could easily be split off that one later as well if necessary. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few days sorting {{rail-stub}} articles into, among others, {{UK-depot-stub}} which is already a subcategory of both {{UK-struct-stub}} and {{rail-stub}}. Many of the station articles had both rail-stub and UK-struct-stub, so sorting one also sorted the other; on articles that had both, I removed both and used the more specific stub category. I wouldn't necessarily object to sorting by ___location, but sorting by structure type seems more appropriate to me. slambo 19:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm, maybe. I still think that having a WikiProject able to find buildings on the city it's working on might make a London-struct-stub useful. But there'd be nothing wrong with having a UK-church-stub with London-church-stub as a subcat of it, so perhaps that would be the way to go. Wish there was some better term than church, though, to cover all places of worship, not just Christian ones. Grutness...wha? 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Law Stub

I propose the creaton of {{scots-law-stub}} as I am increasingly finding more and more stubs on Scots law for law in Scotland and having to identify them as {{law-stub}}. The Law stubs page is already massive. Davidkinnen 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them do you think there are? I know Scots law is very distinctive, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few. And - although I can understand the reason for name you suggest - would there be any objections to Scotland-law-stub? (BTW - you might want to remove your sandbox from Category:Scottish law! Grutness...wha? 10:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the {{law-stub}} category is massive, and for people who may wish to edit stubs that are specific to a particlar legal system it may be more sensible to subdivide the whole lot into {{common-law-stub}} and {{civil-law-stub}}. Davidkinnen 09:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - that didn't really answer my question. If we assume that there are enough then - since it's true that Scottish law is unique - is the name Scotland-law-stub acceptable? It would be more in keeping with normal stub naming. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be incorrect, however. Surely the name of the stub should match the name of the system it's attached to? - SoM 14:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SoM: Scots law is a term, not a classification. However, what about {{civil-law-stub}}, {{criminal-law-stub}}, {{common-law-stub}}? nae'blis (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Politicians by State

After noticing {{Maryland-politician-stub}} and the huge bloated size of the main US politician stub category (around 2200 stubs), I thought I'd make a quick check to see how the numbers work out. Results are HERE. I moved through them rather quickly, so there is a margin of error built into the numbers, but they should be proportionally accurate given the size of the category. Which state do we want to stop at? GeeJo (talk) 01:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I use 75 for the state-geo-stub splits... so the borderline would be around the Alabama/Texas area. If you split down to 9and including) Texas, that would give seven more state-specific politician stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the editors involved in the California WikiProject just created List of Speakers of the California State Assembly, which, if fully populated, would add 50 more stubs to the 149 that already exist to California. Since he seems to be a bit of political junkie, I'm sure that a {{California-politician-stub}} would be very useful. Also, there are probably more politicians in {{US-bio-stub}} who haven't been categorized (and is another huge category that could probably have some state-bio-stubs created). BlankVerse ∅ 10:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of road stubs

I'd like to have a whole bunch of stubs approved per the discussion under U.S. Highway Stub:

I'm not sure if dashes are needed, or if I should use route instead of highway. However, {{US-road-stub}} has over 600 articles in it, as does {{road-stub}}. Something needs to be done about this... --Rschen7754

I also need to add that {{Kentucky State Highway Stub}} has been created (for its associated WP). --Rschen7754

In anwer to your question, theoretically they should have hyphens, but so far none of the other State Highway stubs do. I noted in a section further up the page that they're "in a list of stubs to take to sfd for renaming at some point". Personally, I'd prefer to see them shortened, too, perhaps to something like Maryland-SHwy-stub, but I might be in the minority. One more point - if they were to be hyphenated, it should be as xxx-statehighway-stub, and one of them would be NewHampshire-statehighway-stub (or possibly -StateHighway- ). Input is greatly needed here from other stub sorters! Canada-road-stub, though, is long overdue, and I've often thought of proposing it myself. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to see them hyphenated. at the very least, "stub" should be lowercase. Something of the form xxx-statehighway-stub would be my preference, as it fits best with the other stub categories. Shortened would be nice, but I don't thing there's any obvious way to abbreviate "State Highway"... --Mairi 17:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{XX-st-hwy-stub}}, where XX is the two letter postal code for the state? It's fairly short, and consistent with other stub categories, no? Even shorter would be {{XX-road-stub}} or {{Xxxxx-road-stub}}, either of which is consistent with its parent {{US-road-stub}}. GTBacchus 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't use the two-letter U.S. postal abbreviations for stubs. Also, these are state routes, not just any ole roads in the state. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive4#U.S._Highway_Stub for more info.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can we do something so that more WikiProjects are aware of this project? As a lot of them make stubs for their project, but usually any standardized names, and without this project knowing about them. It'd save alot of trouble discovering/renaming/deleting them... --Mairi 17:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering starting a US Roads WP to coordinate the us road articles... and I'll try to say something about this WP if I do.--Rschen7754 06:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'll start creating the stubs listed above soon (within next month)... I'm currently classifying the Interstate stubs right now. When I do create them I'll note it above and on the stub types page. I'll substitute hyphens instead of spaces for now for consistency... how do I create a stub redirect for WA though?.--Rschen7754 00:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Simply move the template to a new title. The old name will automatically redirect to it (and don't do what I didthe first time I tried this - remember to specify that the new name is a template!) Grutness...wha? 01:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, September 2005

Jewish biography stub

Proposal by Nowhither 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose the creation of a stub tag for biographies of Jews, tentatively called "Jewish-bio-stub". This would be for biographical stubs about people who are notable primarily as Jews.

This tag would be appropriate for a number of existing stub articles that have no meaningful biographical stub tag; that is, they either have the (relatively useless) "Bio-stub", or else no biographical stub tag at all. Some examples:

Other biographical stubs, that currently do have a meaningful bio stub tag, might still be candidates for "Jewish-bio-stub". For example:

This last category includes some marked as "religious figures":

I am aware that biographical stubs are traditionally sorted by either nationality or occupation, and being Jewish is neither of those. However, I think it is clear that this tag would be a useful way for editors to find articles to work on (which is the point of stub tags).

— Nowhither 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't simply adding the already existing {{JewHist-stub}} do the trick? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{JewHist-stub}} is not a biographical stub. It's semi-appropriate, of course, and, as my links above show, it is used. Similarly, we could mark all scientists with {{Sci-stub}}, but we don't because we have a biographical stub: {{Scientist-stub}}. Use of {{JewHist-stub}} is very appropriate for articles like Second Temple Period and Government of ancient Israel, but it is not quite optimal for stubs about people. — Nowhither 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:) Believe me, I know that. Which is why I said adding the stub rather that replacing. Nationality and occupation are the usual ways to split people, and while I realise that the jewish faith is a specific case where a religion-bio-stub would make sense, I'm just a bit chary about setting a precedent that crosses other categories. Rather than being like marking scientists with sci-stub, it's more like marking relativity researchers with both physicist-stub and relativity-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been one semi-negative comment here. That's it. I like the idea, and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism was largely positive. So do I create the stub tag? I'm not sure .... — Nowhither 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it for now - see if it gets further comments one way or the other. Sometimes these things percolate for a while before there's any definite decision. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - though I realise the two categories are overlapping rather than in any way being near to identical, you might be interested that Israel-bio-stub is very likely to be created soon. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchange stubs

The Category:Economics and finance stubs is filled with articles about stock exchanges and indices (I hope to have the exact count finished by tomorrow). This leads me to propose a template {{stock exchange-stub}} and a category that goes along with it. Aecis 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like the idea, but not the name - losing the space to make stockexchange-stub would be better, but something else is likely to be better still... Grutness...wha? 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone through Category:Economics and finance stubs and Category:Stock exchanges. So far, I've found 70 stubs articles relating to stock exchanges, 46 in Category:Economics and finance stubs and 24 in Category:Stock exchanges. So the size of the new stub category shouldn't be that much of a problem. What do you see as an alternative to {{stockexchange-stub}}? I can't think of any. Aecis 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. I had a nagging feeling that there was a better name, but couldn't put my finger on it. Perhaps stockmarket-stub? That would also allow for a slightly broader interpretation of what could be stubbed with it. I'm a little unsure of the difference though, and the Wikipedia articles are a bit vague, just saying that they're not the same thing, without really pointing out the differences. Or brokerage-stub - or is that too ambiguous? If the term bourse was wider used it would solve the problem, but it isn't. Perhaps it's best to go with stockexchange-stub. Grutness...wha? 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another option might be stock-stub or stocks-stub, but that might be too ambiguous and might not be intuitive enough. I think stockexchange-stub is the most intuitive of all options (NYSE, FTSE). I'll see if I can find a better option in the next few days. Aecis 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Musicians/Music Subcategory proposals

To further reduce the overpopulation in the Musicians and Music stub categories, I'd like to propose a few more subdivisions:

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

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

Although it might seem a little contrived, it'd be useful of all the genre stubs had the same number of hyphenations, so I'd suggest countrymusic-stub, gospelmusic-stub amd folkmusic-stub. Also, given the recent jazz-stub - which seems to include a lot of jazz musicians, perhaps {{jazz-musician-stub}} would also probably be useful. The one problem I see with both that and classical-musician-stub, though, is that splitting of musicians so far has been by instrument rather than genre. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- i'll do whatever you want with the hyphens. i didn't think there was quite the need to split the jazz musicians from the other jazz related stubs, although maybe, to be a purist, i should have. the problem i'm seeing w/ the musician-stubs split by instrument (as they are) is that people are getting lost within those categories. going on the assumption that the stub categories should be grouped to attrack the interest of potential contributors and editors, it seems to make the most sense to pull some of these folks into genre categories. someone willing to write about Bill Frisell for example, would be more apt to also write about Richie Powell or the Brecon Jazz Festival, than say, about Jesse Pintado. i've been trying to chisel away at the musician stub category for several days already and it's just killing me that people like András Schiff, Marcel LaFosse, Papa Charlie McCoy and Ruth Laredo are jammed into a huge category with the likes of MC Chickaboo, Flesh-n-Bone, J-Kwon, Fan 3, and MC HotDog.  :-J. Van Meter 01:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm not a fan of the "musician by instrument" categories myself - I feel that it would make more sense, say, to have Andre Segovia with Yehudi Menuhin than with Jeff Beck. It may be that some more thought is needed over the way musicians are being split - especially since you can get multi-instrumentalists. Mnd you, you also get people who perform in several styles, so I suppose it's not clear-cut either way. Grutness...wha? 05:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-I certainly don't think it's necessary to peel everyone out of the musicians category and put them all into a million ultra-specific sub-stub categories. As you mention, there is a lot of cross-over and gray area. I just think pulling some of the glaringly obvious ones out would be a fine improvement. Right now there is an opera-stub, an opera-singer-stub and a classical-composition-stub. So how 'bout for starters I do a {{classical-music-stub}}. This will handle the musicians, as well as any composers, conductors and misc. historic figures. I think that will make for a decent sized category without the need for getting any more specific. (Opera singer stubs, for example aren't divided up for contraltos and tenors.) How does that sound? (No pun intended.)
J. Van Meter 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Genre is useful, but so is instrument. Personally I think {{woodwind-musician-stub}}, {{brass-musician-stub}}, {{keyboard-musician-stub}}, and {{string-musician-stub}} would all be useful. Those who are multi-instrumentalists in one genre would get just the one genre stub, those who are multi-genre artists on one instument (family) would get just the one instrument stub and those who play but a single genre on a single instrument would get both. After all, Wikipedia is not a tree.
- at this point, after browsing through the current music and musician stubs for a while now, i just don't believe there are that many classical artist stubs there to warrant so many and such specific categories. J. Van Meter 14:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have also noticed many various non-musician but music-related people stubs. Something should be created for them. I'd suggest {{music-bio-stub}}, in the same vein as film-bio-stub and poli-bio-stub, but it still sounds awful. --Joy [shallot] 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Footyclub-stub}}

The Category:Football (soccer) stubs is getting seriously overpopulated. Most of the articles in the category are about football clubs. And since there already is a daughter category English football club stubs, I would like to propose new daughter categories of Category:Football (soccer) stubs:

  1. {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} / Category:African football (soccer) club stubs
  2. {{Asia-footyclub-stub}} / Category:Asian football (soccer) club stubs
  3. {{Euro-footyclub-stub}} / Category:European football (soccer) club stubs
  4. {{SAm-footyclub-stub}} / Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs
  5. {{US-footyclub-stub}} / Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs

If there are any clubs (for instance from Australia or New Zealand) that are not covered by these categories, there are two options:

  1. They remain in the Category:Football (soccer) stubs
  2. They are moved to a Category:Football (soccer) club stubs, which could then function as a parent category of the stub categories I proposed.

After this move, creating national daughter categories should be much easier, similar to what is happening with Geo Stubs. I would also like to propose renaming {{eng-club-stub}} to {{eng-footyclub-stub}}. Aecis 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 of sorting out Category:Football (soccer) stubs would be the creation of three other stub templates and categories ({{footyorg-stub}} for national federations and continental confederations, {{footystadium-stub}} for stadiums and {{footyleague-stub}} for domestic and international leagues), but their viability can only be established once the club articles are moved to daughter categories. Aecis 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - though I think that the Euro category will probably need further splitting. I'd suggest a couple of minor changes though (my changes in italics)-
  1. {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} / Category:African football (soccer) club stubs
  2. {{AO-footyclub-stub}} / Category:Asian and Oceanian football (soccer) club stubs
  3. {{Euro-footyclub-stub}} / Category:European football (soccer) club stubs
    1. {{England-footyclub-stub}} (rather than Eng)
    2. {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}}
  4. {{SAm-footyclub-stub}} / Category:South American football (soccer) club stubs
  5. {{Concacaf-footyclub-stub}} / Category:CONCACAF football (soccer) club stubs (see note below)
    1. {{US-footyclub-stub}} / Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs

This divides up the soccer world in much the way that FIFA does (but combines Asia and Oceania, something which may happen yet with FIFA anyway). CONCACAF is the official FIFA term for North and Central America plus the Caribbean. A better name would be desirable here, if someone can think of one! Grutness...wha? 23:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply {{NAm-footyclub-stub}}? Central America is usually viewed as a part of North America and given a choice between only NAm and SAm, I know that I's include the Caribbean in NAm as well. Caerwine 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erm... excuse me for asking an impertinent question, but where abouts do you live? I only ask because I've never heard of Central America or the Caribbean being viewed of as part of North America. I think if you had a NAm-footyclub-stub, someone would come along very quickly and create CAm-footyclub-stub and Caribbean-footyclub-stub. I'd certainly never consider adding NAm-footyclub-stub to clubs in Jamaica, Honduras or the like. Grutness...wha? 13:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S., but I'm hardly alone in considering Central America as part of North America. To quote the first sentence of Wiikpedia's own article on Central America, "Central America is the region of North America located between the southern border of Mexico and the northwest border of Colombia, in South America." As for the Caribbean, I agree that it might require some patrolling to populate the stubs appropriately, but there shouldn't be all that many Caribbean footy stubs. Of course, the text of the stub should make it clear that Central America and the Caribbean are included. Caerwine 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting discussion, between Caerwine and Grutness. Which brings the following thought to mind: wouldn't it be less ambiguous to sort by confederation, instead of by continent? This would mean that clubs from for instance Kazakhstan, Turkey or Israel would fall under {{UEFA-footyclub-stub}}, while clubs from North and Central America and the Caribbean (and Guyana and Suriname from South America) would fall under {{CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? Aecis 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do many parts of the world think of soccer when they hear the term "footy club"? I think of Aussie Rules as "footy". --Scott Davis Talk 15:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Template:Football-stub is a redirect to Template:Footy-stub (there is no Template:Soccer-stub). And since the template is footy-stub, I think it's best to make this template use footyclub-stub, for the sake of consistency. Australian Rules football uses {{afl-stub}}, American Football uses {{Amfootball-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An elaboration of the above proposal on sorting by confederation instead of by continent: this proposal, if approved, would lead to six new stub templates: {{AFC-footyclub-stub}}, {{CAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{CONMEBOL-footyclub-stub}}, {{CONCACAF-footyclub-stub}}, {{OFC-footyclub-stub}} and {{UEFA-footyclub-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea as far as sorting is concerned, but the names aren't widely known to non-soccer fans. Also it leaves the problem of Oceania - almost all the (small number of) stubs for that will be Australian, and Australia is in the process of moving from OFC to AFC. I still think it would be better to combine those two regions (in terms of stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that there seems to be little argument about Euro-footyclub-stub, US-footyclub-stub or Africa-footyclub-stub - even just splitting these three off will be very useful, so perhaps it's worth doing that for now and thinking some more about how to split off the rest. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and after 5pm CET I can help :) What about SAm-footyclub-stub, or for instance Brazil-footyclub-stub and Scotland-footyclub-stub? The Euro-footyclub-stub category will probably become large enough to already start thinking about split-offs. Aecis 11:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They probably would be useful - but I'd stick with a few main ones first - that will at least empty the main category considerably, and will make it easier to work out where the next splits will be. It may be that you find yourself thinking "wow - a lot of these seem to be from Norway!" or something like that. I know from the geo-stubs that it isn't always the obvious places that have the most stubs. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find myself thinking that, I found myself being impatient ;) Aecis 16:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have created euro-footyclub-stub, Africa-footyclub-stub and US-footyclub-stub. Australia doesn't have to be much of a problem: there are probably enough Australian clubs for an Australia-footyclub-stub template. For as long as Australia is under the OFC, it can be sorted under Oceania-footyclub-stub. When Australia moves to the AFC (I don't know when that will happen), it can be sorted under Asia-footyclub-stub. If Asia and Oceania are fully merged, we might retain both templates, but have them both feed into "Asian and Oceanian football clubs," or something to that extent, and delete "Asian football clubs" and "Oceanian football clubs." What also needs to be made very explicit, is that clubs from Israel, Turkey and Kazakhstan should get euro-footyclub-stub, because their national federations are UEFA members. After all, we follow the sports continents, not the geographic continents. (Right?) Aecis 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly makes sense to do so in cases like this. With geo-stubs, we tend to overlap a bit, putting individula country categories into two continent parents where necessary, but given that the confederations make handy divisions, I don't think that's necessary here. It'll need a bit of wording in the category (and maybe the template) to make sure that countries are put into the right categories though. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like creating {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} wasn't the best idea. I've gone through P-Z of {{footy-stub}} but haven't run into a single African club article. At present there are 8 of them. Conscious 07:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweden and Scotland, yes. Footystadium, I'm less keen on. Most stadia are multi-use, and we don't even use stadium-stub (although one of them might not be far off). Double-stubbing with struct-stub or one of its subcats would be of more use. Oh, and SouthAm is the more usual abbreviation we use here. Grutness...wha? 07:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The splitting seems to be completed. There are 9 {{Africa-footyclub-stub}}s. Maybe they should be returned to the parent category, and this template deleted? Conscious 13:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed feelings. If the template indeed can't reach the threshold, it's best to delete it and return the articles that use it to the parent category move the articles that use it to {{footyclub-stub}}, a daughter of {{footy-stub}} and a parent of the continental club stubs. Because I'm not an admin, I can't delete the template, but as the template's proposer and creator, I will take care of returning moving them. However, I think it's too early to tell. I think it's best to give this one a chance. Aecis 21:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Retail Stub

How about a UK retail stub? Similar to the current retail one but with UK added to the name. Greaterlondoner 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-retail-stub}} could be useful... IIRC, though, we're dividing up retailers by type of business, rather than ___location, though I'm not 100% certain on that - anyone here involved in the retail-stub split care to comment? If we are dividing by ___location, this would definitely be a useful one. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Stubs

earler discussion on this subject is now archived)

I just sorted through Ireland, and found 69 writer stubs in {{Ireland-bio-stub}}, so I'll create the split in a few days barring any objections. I'll get to Norway, Poland, Russia, and Sweden as time allows. Caerwine 18:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished sorting Norway. I found only 53 writer stubs. Caerwine 01:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of ({{Academic-bio-stub}} and ({{Reli-bio-stub}}

Looking for outsize profession-stub categories, I've found these two, both now north of 800 stubs. If we split on country lines, it's likely to help with US-bio-stub; OTOH, splitting respectively by discipline (possibly) and religion (almost certainly) may actually be more attractive options. Canvassing opinions either way. Alai 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been randomly surfing through {{reli-bio-stub}}, aselectly clicking on links, and I've come across many stubs about bishops. So I would like to bring up the possibility of {{bishop-stub}}. Aecis 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " resulted in 92 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" " gave me 83 hits. Googling for "site:en.wikipedia.org +bishop +archbishop +"This biography of a religious figure is a stub" "(to check for doubles with the two earlier queries) brought about 32 hits. This group of religious biographies has enough stub articles for a stub template and stub category, so I would like to officially propose {{bishop-stub}} and Category:Bishop stubs. Aecis 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, names like Christian-bio-stub and Moslem-bio-stub would be best, but that doesn't specify that the bios are of people specifically connected to the church, so they're terms probably better avoided. 32 is a little thin - how about widening the bishop category a little and making it Clergy-stub, for all Christian clergy - bishops, priests, archbishops, etc? Also, would an Imam-stub for the Moslem equivalent be useful? Grutness...wha? 00:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are 32 doubles in the queries. This means that there are 60 unique bishop hits and 51 unique archbishop hits. This means that the bishop stub category will contain at least 111 articles. Aecis 08:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps name them Christian-relibio-stub and Muslim-relibio-stub, to make it more clear that they're still religious biographies? Clergy-stub also sounds like a good idea. --Mairi 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a {{Germany-academic-bio-stub}} down below to assist with sorting out {{Germany-bio-stub}}. Caerwine 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication stub

Proposal by Rauh 03:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I propose a stub for topics on communication field of research and science. Many stubs that would fall in this category are assigned to psychology, political, linguistics etc. when the main research effort is done by communication scholars and publshed on communication journals. This spread of topics on other discipline stubs makes it hard for people who know the communication research ___domain to fill out these articles.

Some examples:

Rauh 03:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that this would be very well-defined. In particular, none of the above articles have a common permanent category, or category parent in common; surely proposing that would be a logical first step? Alai 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is well defined since all of the above appear in any introduction to communication course or book, plus a lot of other related material. I was also following the logic of having psychology stubs, sociology stubs, etc. However, I can see your point on getting them under a category first. Still, I think that some would go under the existing comm theory category, others under communication category. I was thinking that the stub would provide a central place for all of those. What do you suggest that I do? Rauh 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I haven't seen in this discussion, is a proposed template and matching category. So here is my proposal (or rather, my processing of the discussion above): {{com-sci-stub}} / Category:Communication science stubs. What I also haven't heard is an indication of how many articles would fit into this category. I don't think it will be hard to make this reach the threshold, but it's best to be on the safe side. Aecis 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposed template and category is interesting but it might need to be more general than that since a lot of communication research or studies are not scientific but humanistic (e.g. symbolic interactionism) and such, although it becomes somewhat blurred with Linguistics. Communication science might be a better defined ___domain.
Is there any guideline to creating a count of articles that would fit in that category? There is a Communication basic topics page that cover many of the articles that would fit in there. The Communication studies article might also be informative. Can you please inform me a little more on how to compile this list/count? Rauh 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comm-sci-stub would be better that com-sci-stub, otherwise there'll be confusion with computer science. Actually, communication-sci-stub would be better yet, though probably not really necessary. ISTR there is already a com-stub, though (linking to Category:Telecommunications stubs). It sounds also like some of the stubs you're thinking of are alreadly listed as socio-stubs (Category:Sociology stubs) and ling-stubs (Category:Linguistics stubs). The best way to compile a count would be to go through the relevant stub categories that might have some of these articles and see what you can find. If there were 50 or more, then a separate stub type would definitely be viable. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comm-stubs or comm-sci-stubs, of course. One of the reasons that I suggested the comm-stubs was exactly because many of the articles that would fall under this category are scattered around in Category:Telecommunications stubs, Category:Sociology stubs, Category:Linguistics stubs, Category:Psychology stubs and Category:Political stubs. But because these are communication topics they are less likely to be filled out by people checking those stub lists. I will go through them and compile a list of candidates to the new stub. Rauh 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After going through all the above stub categories here is a list of articles appropriate for a comm-stub or a comm-sci-stub:

  1. Access to knowledge
  2. Agenda setting
  3. Communication skill
  4. Communication skills
  5. Communication studies
  6. Construct validity
  7. Consumer science
  8. Conversation analysis
  9. Corporate media
  10. Credibility
  11. Cultivation theory
  12. Cultivation theory
  13. Discourse analysis
  14. Dyadic communication
  15. Emotional expression
  16. Emotional intimacy
  17. Emotional labor
  18. Expressive aphasia
  19. Global aphasia
  20. Gricean maxims
  21. Homophily
  22. Hypodermic needle model
  23. Informational society
  24. Interactionism
  25. Internet romance
  26. Interpersonal relationship
  27. Interpersonal skills
  28. Kinesics
  29. Knowledge gap hypothesis
  30. Long term relationship
  31. Long-distance relationship
  32. Manual communication
  33. Mass society
  34. Maxwell McCombs
  35. Media audience studies
  36. Media ecosystem
  37. Media ethics
  38. Media responsibility
  39. Metanalysis
  40. Nonverbal communication
  41. Operant behavior
  42. Persuasion
  43. Public speaker
  44. Revolutionary propaganda
  45. Selective distortion
  46. Spiral of silence
  47. Symbolic communication
  48. Teleimmersion
  49. Two-step flow of communication
  50. Two-way communication
  51. Uses and gratifications

Rauh 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To return to my "well-definedness" point; the thing is, none of the [originally] cited articles are in any pre-existing permanent communications category, and several of them are in distinct permanent categories. What I didn't realize at the time, however, was that there already in fact is a Category:Communication (which would be one obvious place to start looking for perm-catted stubs). If what's being proposed is the stub counterpart of that, then fair enough (subject to a "viability count"), but I'm personally still not at all clear what the precise scope actually is, and I'm dubious about how consistently applied and "stable" the permanent category actually is. That is, are the majority of the articles with the intended scope already in that category, and if not, would catting them that way be clearly defined, generally agreed, and uncontroverial? If the overlap with media studies, linguistics, sociology, etc, is too high, or too debatable, then this may be more trouble than it's worth. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Made the above comment last night, didn't notice the resultant edit conflict. Some additional thoughts:) Thanks for doing the detailed count-down, Rauh. However, I still have concerns: Looking at a number of that list, it seems that this is more of a "cross-stubbing" than a stub-sorting proposal; the majority already have entirely reasonable-looking stub tags (and some already have two such); many already have permanent categories not included in the communications category hierarchy. Thus I think in a lot of these cases, adding "comm-stub" would be proposing significant additional category overlap, and restubbing them as such, category "drift". Mind you, I've never been a fan of the only one (or only two) stub tags notion, so that's not necessarily a bad thing as such, at least if the additional tagging is really likely to get those articles significant extra attention from "communications" people, rather than "linguistics" people, etc. Alai 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Alai, I can certainly understand your point and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that such a controversy runs inside communication research as well. Since communication is a "universalist" topic present in a lot of disciplines it becames difficult to categorize topics as "just" communication. Even definitions of such that most researchers agree are hard to come by. However, you must agree that there is certainly such a concept as "communication" and that there is a related field of study of "communication" and a more specific subdomain of "communication science" that takes as its subject matter the concept we are debating here. Social psychology and sociology suffer of the same problem on many domains. The fact that some pages are currently categorized under certain categories does not make that categorization right. I believe that the above pages would most correctly be categorized under communication studies (or science for most). With possible a second categorization with the topic of communication in consideration (e.g. Politics for Agenda Setting, possibly).
Having said that, my point in suggesting the creation of a communications stub is that I firmly believe that editors who search a psychology (or politics, sociology, etc.) stub list will be less likely to fill out the above topics compared to editors who search a communications stub. The topics listed above are central to communication research but periferical to these other domains. I think that the goal here is to have these stubs filled out and getting them on a comm stub list might help in that process.
One final argument that I have is that as I have been roaming through communication cateogory and communication research topics I have noticed that it is not well covered. There are inumerous topics that could be added. Most of the pages are of very bad quality and obviously edited by, alas, people with psychology and sociology background. My project is also to edit this content area somewhat and the stub, I hope, will help me get some more people involved in the process. Maybe I should start this the other way around and starting working on the topics and come back later for the stub, but since there are plenty of pages for this list I'd rather advance the process. Rauh 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to support this, on the basis of the central/peripheral "acid test" you suggest. I'm not sure stub categories are much of a way in and of themselves of attracting editors out of a blue sky -- maybe you should look at a WikiProject:Communications? (Or Comm. Sci.) Certainly they're a facility for editors that are already so inclined. Good luck with your doubtless upcoming clashes with psychologists and sociologists -- alas. :) Alai 04:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Internet-bio-stub}}

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

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

Headgear stub

I think there is a need to create this stub. There are a large number of hat and headgear articles which could use expansion. The list of hats and headgear page is getting messy. Snafflekid 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm - more to the point, Category:Fashion stubs is slowly getting towards the point of needing a split, and headwear (more precisely, headwear and hair styles) and footwear might be the two most obvious splits. Anyone keeping track of what the numbers are like in that category? Grutness...wha? 03:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Headwear seems better than Headgear. there is a redirect from headwear to headgear now but I think the page should be renamed to headgear. Probably do it after hearing comments on the stub. Snafflekid 04:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAsia-stub

Even if we went ahead and rounded this out with Nepal-stub and Bhutan-stub, there are enough pre-1947 partition stubs in just the history and writer stubs to make this a worthy category. Caerwine 16:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just created this. An inital exploration of {{Asia-geo-stub}} added over 20 stubs, mostly, but not entirely Bhutanese as that's the only country in the region that doesn't have it's own stub. I also reset the names of the categories in the Asia stubs for Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to the -related versions. It's all well and good to plan to move over to the other, but it hasn't been done, so it makes it look like the sub types are empty when they aren't. (Left the cats themselves alone, just took their names off the list.) Caerwine 02:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure you leave them with the geo-stub tag too (it's how we work out whn to break out a new geo-stub category, and Bhutan's slowly progressing towards this Hell's bells - I just realised who I'm talking to. You know all that. There should also have been a lot of Sri Lankan ones in there, as it doesn't have its own geo-stub either. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. Skip that - there's already a {{SL-stub}}, of course. Perhaps I need to take a break! Grutness...wha? 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup and {{SL-stub}} is on my to do list of things to take to SfD since besides Sri Lanka, there is also a Sierra Leone. However, I already have too much stub stuff on my plate to want to do anything about it at the moment. Caerwine 21:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{language-bio-stub}}

I believe a stub category for linguicists and people notable for documenting, exploring, etc specific languages or language in general would be useful.--Carabinieri 07:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain about numbers, but if there were enough then {{linguist-stub}} would be a better name. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with linguist-stub, add other as redirect if it's useful for restubbing. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with linguist-stub is that a lot of the people I have in mind aren't/weren't linguists in the scientific/academic sense, but are just notable for having been the first to document or write a comprehensive dictionary for a certain language. These were often missionaries or explorers.--Carabinieri 12:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think "linguist" can be defined broadly enough to include any missionaries or explorers who were the first to document or write a comprehensive dictionary for a certain language. I'm for {{linguist-stub}}. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Belgium-bio-stub}}

I googled site:en.wikipedia.org "this biographical article is a stub" Belgium OR Belgian and got 64 hits; of the first 10, 8 would fit into this category; assuming this trend is continued through the rest of the hits we're looking at approximately 50-55 stubs in this category. I guess it's safe to assume that there are some stubs, which google did not find, since those words don't occur in the article for some reason, so there could even be more stubs in the category. The template already exists, but there is no category; and I'm assuming that whoever created the template did not propose it here first.--Carabinieri

IIRC it wasn't, but it came up on the discoveries page and seemed like a good category. I don't remember abyone mentioning that the category didn't exist though. Go for it, I'd say! Grutness...wha? 08:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template already exists, there seem to be no objections, this fits in nicely... I suggest we speedy this one. Aecis 17:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've been finding a bunch of gang-cruft. The {{crime-stub}} seems to be the most appropriate stub to add, but there is almost certainly enough articles for a gang-stub. See gang, List of street gangs, List of Los Angeles street gangs, List of historical gang members of New York City, Category:Modern street gangs, Category:Historical gangs of New York City, and the woefully inadequate List of motorcycle gangs. There are also dozens of other gang articles that are not yet in those lists or categories (see Maravilla and Black Angels), plus related articles such as Gang Signals. Kasper Gutman 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More splits in mil-stub hierarchy

  • {{US-navy-stub}}. There's at least 200 US Navy ship stubs in {{mil-ship-stub}}, alone. (An immediate sub-cat of which would be another possibility; {{US-mil-ship-stub}}?)
  • {{US-mil-bio-stub}}. In one case I found myself triple-stubbing something as {{US-bio-stub}}, {{US-mil-stub}}, and {{mil-bio-stub}}, which is getting into set theory gone mad territory. And mil-bio-stub has about 920 stubs, so itself is in need of a split.
  • {{UK-mil-stub}}. Haven't done a count, but looks certain to be viable.
  • {{Germany-mil-stub}}. Lots of historical stuff (or should these be going into WW2 categories and such like?).

There are probably other feasible sub-cats that could be split out, these seem by eyeball to be the most pressing for starters. Alai 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit wary of the triple-hyphened ones, though I can see them coming in time (and we've got US-midwest-geo-stub and the like, so there is a precedent). US-mil-ship-stub could be quite useful, though.
The UK and Germany categories are definitely good ideas, although also note that there is Nazi-stub. I can't remember the exact parameters for it, but it could well include all WWII Germany articles. And, as you said, there is a WWII-stub.
As for US-mil-bio-stub, US-bio-stub and mil-bio-stub is probably enough for now - and no bio articles should get US-mil-stub (which isn't for people - people shouldn't be in any categories other than bio or occupation!) Grutness...wha? 03:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, thanks. The triple-hyphens are pretty ugly-looking, yeah, if anyone has any better names, fire away. Even without the triple-stubbing, though, the "US-mil-bio-stub" (in some form) one looks almost an inevitability, given the numbers. Alai 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{UK-mil-stub}} created, and (partially) populated. Now has "adopted" {{RAF-stub}} as a sub-cat. Alai 02:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{US-bcast-stub}}

Now about 1000 stubs. Split out the radio stations and the TV stations? Alai 09:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}

I'd like to create this template to aid in the improvement of articles about British television channels as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels. Currently most articles are tagged as {{UK-bcast-stub}} or {{TV-stub}}. This template would move them into a single category, which would then categorise as a subcategory of the categories linked to by both of these.

Suggested text:

  This article on a British television channel is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced you're going to get 50 or more stubs in that category. At the moment, British broadcasting stations are covered by UK-bcast-stub, which has under 350 stubs, most of which are radio stations. I doubt if there are more that 20 UK TV station stubs in there, so a separate category seems unnecessary. The again, if some of them are incorrectly marked with TV-stub, and there is a wikiproject, and there's talk above of splittng up US-bcast-stub... hmm. Anyone? (Nice icon, BTW) Grutness...wha? 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a good chance it could get to 50, (I haven't actually counted) as if you look in Category:British television channels there is a fair few articles there, and many, if not more than half are stubs all tagged differently, some untagged. Plus many more will be added (look at all the red links on List of British television channels). Cheers about the icon ;) MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics Stub

Evening, can we have an Athletics stub so the 1500m, 100m hurdles, 200m hurdles, 400m hurdles, 800m hurdles and any other newly created articles that come under the heading of "athletics" (there are hundreds) can have it's stub. Cokehabit 15:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At first wink, I approve: there's over the "magic" 800 in {{sports-stub}}, and athletics must be one of the more significant "unsplit" sub-cats. On the other hand... hundreds? I'm dubious there's that many, do you have a rough count? Of existing articles, that is, not counting the "bios". And secondly, in the US the terminology would be "track and field", so if we go ahead with the name as suggested, doubtless a Commonwealth English putsch will be called on us later. (Though that does seem to be the terminology used in the permanent category, so what the heck.) Alai 16:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a very good idea, and I'd wager that there are three figures' worth of stubs (though "hundreds" migh be a bit of hyperbole). As Alai has pointed out, though, there are different meanings of the term "Athlete" in different parts of the world. It'll be necessary to state on both template and category that it's for Track & Field athletics. {{athletics-stub}} is still a viable name if the template is worded properly, but perhaps Category:Track and field athletics stubs will be needed for the category. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Stubs

After going through much of the 9 pages of writer stubs, I think that there are justifiable numbers to create Template:Roman-writer-stub and Template:Greek-writer-stub (or perhaps just Template:Ancient-writer-stub, as well as Template:SAmer-writer-stub or something similar for all the Colombian, Chilean, Argentinian, Brazilian, etc. writers.

  • I just realized there's no Ancient Roman stub category for anything else. Scratch just the writer stub, let's have Template:Roman-bio-stub, to cover generals and orators and senators and such. (written by User:Bonsai Viking)
  • There is a {{Roman-stub}} and a {{Ancient-Greece-stub}} in the history section, neither of which are overly large at the moment. The writer stubs are in the process of being recatted into the 9 new sub categories created just yesterday. If it keeps at this pace, I think writer stubs will no longer be a very large category very soon (it's already down to 8 pages). So I don't see the need to avoid double stubbing by adding a new stub cat for them just yet.
I've been keeping a reasonably careful count, and by that count there are not yet 50 South American writer stubs, though I may encounter some more as I go through the new blue links I've been finding while restubbing the writer stubs. Caerwine 09:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Activism Stubs

--naught101 01:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC) there are plenty of pages on vaious types of activism, I would suggest that these go under politics. I'm not sure if activists should also go under activism, or have its own stub type. I will come back and add the numbers that I can find for each type, and there are probably more type that these. I would suggest among others:[reply]

(I slightly reorganised the above, since they're easier to debate in one load) I strongly doubt you're going to find more that 60 stubs for each of these - and several of these are already well covered by other stub types ({{LGBT-stub}} and {{fem-stub}}, for instance). Tentatively I'd support one overall {{activism-stub}} and a separate {{activist-stub}}, although in each case you may be very much in danger of the same sort of POV issues with those templates as with the recently declined terrorist-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would definately find an {{activist-stub}} for political activists as a daughter category of {{poli-bio-stub}} useful. There are already several activists in that category.--Carabinieri 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Starting off with just {{activism-stub}} and {{activist-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Atleast the POV issues would be less than terrorist-stub, I'd hope. Also, "queer" is offensive to some, so that name would be less than desirable. --Mairi 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{child-lit-stub}}

While doing the writer subcatting I would try to add an appropriate genre cat, if a writer concentrated in particular genre. There was one category in particular that I repeatedly wanted and wasn't available, and that was for children's literature. Should also help to slim down {{lit-stub}} which is overly large. Caerwine 02:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having heard no objections, I went ahead and created this one. Caerwine 03:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-struct-stub}} and {{India-struct-stub}}

A little light on the ground in each case, but by far the biggest single countries not to have separate categories in Category:Buildings and structures stubs, with close to 50 stubs each. There seem to be quite a few more marked just with {{Australia-stub}} and {{India-stub}}, too. If that's not enough, making an overall {{Oceania-struct-stub}} might be an option, since that well over 50 (there are about a dozen struct-stubs from New Zealand and the Pacific islands to add to the Aussie ones). Grutness...wha? 09:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No and Yes Neither {{Australia-stub}} nor {{struct-stub}} are so large as to warrant forcing the issue before there are actually 60 known stubs. However, with {{India-stub}} at 6 pages presently, I wouldn't mind being aggresive in making an {{India-struct-stub}}. Caerwine 19:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the various city-specific stub tyes for Australia, there may be close to 200 articles that could use Australia-struct-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've made the India one - I'll leave the Aussie one for now, though I still think it would be very useful. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{service-stub}} {{service-corp-stub}}

A brief glance at the {{corp-stub}} listings suggests that a group parallel to {{retail-stub}} but for those companies that sell consumer services instead of consumer goods would be a useful subcategory. Caerwine 20:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a better name than this though - my first thought when I saw Service-stub was "how would that differ from mil-stub?" Service-corp-stub might be better. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede the point, but that suggests we might want to consider renaming {{retail-stub}} to {{retail-corp-stub}} for consistency. Caerwine 00:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
good point. It probably should be renamed for consistency. Retail-stub also suggests that it could relate to the actual running of retail businesses, which (AFAIK) it doesn't. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Math stubs

I've had another look at the Mathematics stubs, after using the new categories (see above), to reduce the number to around 800. There are some more stub categories that might be useful to reduce that a bit further. I've done a count of the first page, and the most common ones are Number theory (12 articles), Applied mathematics (17 articles) and Category theory (10 articles). If that is typical for all 4 pages that would give 48 articles, 68, and 40 respectively. That might not be representative, as I removed about 30 articles from the first page in the middle of sorting, and the first page is what is left after that. Given that, we can predict a similar removal for the other pages removes about 100 articles, giving about 700, or 3.5 pages. This predicts 42, 60 and 35 articles. I've made a subpage with a list of the entries I've categorised: User:Silverfish/Math Categories. The Other category is for entries I've not given a category. Some might fit into existing or proposed category. There are almost 100 articles in that category, so categorising those might up the number a bit.

I think the case for Applied mathematics is pretty compelling, but I'm not sure about the other two.

There also the issue of the Geometry stubs category, which has grown to about 360 articles. I've been including the more Geometrical seeming bits of Topology in there, but has been big for quite a while. I don't have any suggestions for how to sort it. Any ideas would be appreciated. Silverfish 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some concrete examples of new math stub types. By the way, we should give Silverfish a big thanks, for he was constantly on my watchlist lately classifying the math stubs. Oleg Alexandrov 01:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'jm proposing Applied Mathematics ({{Appliedmath-stub}} or {{Mathapplied-stub}}), and tentatively proposing Category theory ({{Cattheory-stub}}), and Number theory ({{Numtheory-stub}}). Number theory might be a bit tricky with the overall with the Number stubs, but the ones I've counted are aren't about specific numbers or types of number. I haven't proposed anything for Geometry, as that's more of an aside. Silverfish 09:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. If a category of stubs is too big, the best thing to do is to split it into smaller more specific stub categories. Oleg Alexandrov 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{entertainer-stub}}

Basically a catch-all stub type for people like magicians, circus performers, puppeteers, and ventriloquists who make their living by entertaining, but don't really fit into any of the existing occupation stub types. I've come across several that have been shoehorned into actor as I've been sorting those stubs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see others are ill-placed elsewhere. Caerwine 23:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actor stubs

I've been sorting through the actor stubs and I've gotten about halfway through and assuming current trends hold I think I can safely say the following:

  1. There will be more than enough stubs to justify a {{Japan-actor-stub}}.
  2. No other country that does not already have a category will have over 50 stubs in {{actor-stub}}, meaning that country based splits alone will still likely leave Category:Actor stubs over the <800 mark.
  3. The American actor stubs will be well over 10 pages when I'm through, meaning that a gender split between male actors and actresses would not solve the problem.

To solve the American actors problem, I recommend the following four stub types be created:

  1. {{US-film-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their acting in films.
  2. {{US-theat-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their acting on stage.
  3. {{US-tv-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their acting on television.
  4. {{US-voice-actor-stub}} American actors notable primarily for their voice acting.

In addition a {{voice-actor-stub}} to serve as a second parent for {{US-voice-actor-stub}} would also enable voice actors outside the US to be identified. Caerwine 01:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-cats for the USians seems like a sound idea to me. I'm less keen on {{voice-actor-stub}}: I'd rather be a little more proactive in creating "modest-sized" national categories for in the 30-50 size range, or if necessary, some regionalised grouping (with suitable redirects, to make the naming pattern a little more intuitive). Alai 04:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a number of persons whose only or primary credits are for what they've done as voice actors for animation and/or scripted radio. There are close to 700 articles in Category:Voice actors, a fair proportion of those are stub articles about people who work primarily as voice actors. There's even an internet database for voice actors similar to IMDB called the Voice Chasers Database and we even already have a temple {{voice actor}} to access it in the same manner as {{imdb name}}. The templates {{film-bio-stub}}, {{theat-stub}}, {{tv-bio-stub}}, provide a way to generally indicate actors in the other three fields, but there doesn't really exist one for voice actors, which is why I'm proposing it. Caerwine 01:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would really support the idea of a {{Japan-actor-stub}}. I was looking for one today, so I hope you create this stub. SailorAlphaCentauri 04:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All six stubs are now active. Caerwine 22:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urk. Does one proposal and one objection rise to the level of a consensus? The net effect of this creation and population of {{voice-actor-stub}} seems to be pretty much just as I'd feared: we have a second sub-categorisation of actor-stub that cuts right across the primary one, to wit, a slew of voice-actors with no categorisation by nationality. What was wrong with doing this strictly as a tertiary sub-category, for those national actor subcats that were themselves over-sized (or at least, large enough to be splittable)? Alai 05:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Short-story-stub}}

As I sort the {{lit-stub}} beast, I notice that most of the works of literature (as opposed to genres, classifications, modes, etc. which belong in lit-stub) that are not currently categorizable are short stories. Many already have page titles of the format Title_(Short_story). Propose {{Short-story-stub}} as a child of {{Lit-stub}} to deal with these. BonsaiViking 15:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does this proposal intersect with the proposal above for {{child-lit-stub}}?

More actor stubs

Just finished sorting {{actor-stub}}. Everything indicates that the six stub types I proposed above will all be nicely populated. No further country based spilts meet the 60 stub rule based on the stubs in just actor-stub, but Germany and Ireland both have over 40 and might be able to reach 60 if someone were to sort their national bio stubs looking for them.

If HK, Taiwan, and the Mainland were combined into one cat, it would have 51 Chinese actor stubs, with 38 of those being HK. Since I expect that separating out the Japan and voice actor stubs will bring actor stubs to <800 or below, I don't see the need to rush and create a single cat, but I won't object if someone were to create it instead of waiting for Hong Kong actor stubs to reach 60.

Finally, while I will wait until I have the "hard" numbers to back it up, I suspect that a Template:US-porn-actor-stub would easily have 36+24+36 stubs. So I think it's worth considering if American actor stubs remains above the <800 level after doing the four cats mentioned above. Caerwine 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through about half of Ireland-bio-stub, and found a handful, double-stubbing them for now. I'd be inclined to go ahead and create {{Ireland-actor-stub}} in the name of getting the rather large root cat somewhat more down to size. Alai 04:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished sorting {{actor-stub}} to use the new categories. It's down below 800, but just barely. The largest group is some 201 stubs for which there is insufficient to subcategorized based on the data in the stub alone. The countries with more than 40 stubs are Germany (52), Hong Kong (40), Ireland (44), and Italy (40). I'll do a looksie through those four countries bio stubs to see if there are any that could be called actors and bring the total over 60 for them. Caerwine 03:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished sorting {{Hong-Kong-bio-stub}} and found exactly 20 stubs to add to {{actor-stub}}. That just barely gives Hong Kong the necessary 60. I'll get to the other three tomorrow unless someone else gets there first. Good night! Caerwine 04:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look below and you'll see that I found enough stubs to raise German actor stubs to 61. Next up is Ireland in my search. Caerwine 02:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished with both Ireland and Italy. In both cases, I wasn't able to raise my totals above 50 stubs, so I definitely won't be supporting the creation of either an Irish ao an Italain actor stub right now. Caerwine 18:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{reli-struct-stub}}

There's already a {{church-stub}} (see Discoveries) for Christian churches/religious buildings, but there are well over a hundred stubs on religious buildings for other religions. I've been going thru subcategories of Category:Religious buildings, and Buddhism has 46, Shinto 18, Sikhism 4, and Hinduism 37. An earlier count for Islam found 34. Most are inconsistently marked, too. --Mairi 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More counts: Judaism has 12, and Islam now has 43. There are also 6 other ones for assorted religions. (List by religion, for those curious.) --Mairi 22:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{ws-stub}}, {{conlang-stub}}, {{pc-stub}}

I'd like to reduce the load of {{lang-stub}} by creating stub categories for writing systems, constructed languages, and pidgin and creole languages. The {{ws-stub}} category would also be for articles about individual letters of alphabets and the like. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{conlang-stub}} tentatively sounds like a good idea - how many such stubs do you think there are? The other two need more clear names. The stub for writing systems and such definitely sounds good; perhaps just {{writingsystem-stub}}? How many pidgin and creole language stubs are there, as Category:Pidgins and creoles (and subcategories) has just over 100 articles? --Mairi 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just looking through the letter A of Category:Language stubs I found 4 that could go into {{conlang-stub}} and 7 that could go into {{pidgin-creole-stub}} (if you like that name better). Extrapolating from that I estimate 70 in conlang and 100 in pidgin-creole. Keep in mind a lot of these stubs are not otherwise categorized. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be big enough then. {{pidgin-creole-stub}} works for me, even tho it's not our standard hyphenation. (Looking at the main categories was a just a quick way for me to guess at the size, without repeating any counting you might've done.) --Mairi 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would be extremely leary of extrapolating from a sample chosen based on the initial letter of the article name. It makes the assumption that all the subtypes will have the same distribution over all letters as the combined group and that is decidedly a wrong assumption when considering splits of sub types by nationality. I don't know if that is a wrong assumption for this case, but it is not wise to assume sampling the A's of any group will give an accurate extrapolation of group. However, a quickie sample of 44 stubs in the language stubs that I just did chosen in a uniform manner to avoid that problem came with 9 that word go into writing systems, 5 into pidgins and 5 into constructed languages. That gives an extrapolation of a little over 80 for both conlangs and pidgins, so while both our efforts no doubt contain error, there's enough to convince me that the proposed groupings have enough stubs to justify creating them if you want to go to the effort. Caerwine 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice I didn't extrapolate by taking the number of stubs in A and multiplying by 26! But I am willing to go the effort, partly because something sticks in my craw about having a stub about a letter of the alphabet called a "language stub". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not {{pc-stub}} or {{pc-lang-stub}}: it's not clear from the template titles that it's about pidgin and creole languages. It could just as easily be about personal computing languages, politically correct languages, Proto-Celtic languages, or any other term abbreviated to pc. Aecis 22:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{writingsystem-stub}}, {{constructed-lang-stub}}, and {{pidgincreole-lang-stub}}? Or if the last is too long, {{p&c-lang-stub}} (since other things abbreviated PC can't be "P and C")? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{conlang-stub}} would be fine too, as it isn't ambigious and I think it's a fairly common term. I don't care too much for p&c-lang-stub, tho. --Mairi 23:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created {{writingsystem-stub}}. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created and populated {{conlang-stub}} and {{pidgincreole-lang-stub}}. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, {{ii-lang-stub}}

I'd also like to reduce the load of {{ie-lang-stub}} by creating stub categories for the Germanic languages, the Romance languages, and the Indo-Iranian languages. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about the need for these, and whether there are enough for all 3, as {{ie-lang-stub}} only has 198 stubs. --Mairi 23:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I don't see the need to split the Indo European stubs. Only if there were a WikiProject associated with one of the proposed subtypes could I see the desirability at this point. Caerwine 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with looking only at {{ie-lang-stub}} is that there are still a whole lot of Indo-European languages in {{lang-stub}}, and most of them are Romance, Germanic, or Indo-Iranian. I am confident that if {{gmc-lang-stub}}, {{rom-lang-stub}}, and {{ii-lang-stub}} get implemented, there will be at least 60 articles listed in each of those as well as in the parent {{ie-lang-stub}}. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just stubsorted B and C of Category:Language stubs, and Category:Indo-European language stubs is already up to 209 from 198. If I go all the way to the end of Category:Language stubs, there will probably be over 250 articles in Category:Indo-European language stubs. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More computer and video game stubs

moved to correct place on page Grutness...wha?

I have just gone through all CVG stub articles from K through Z and applied the appropriate genre or corporation tags. A through C appear to have been done by somebody else, too. This has removed about 500-600 articles from the main category, but when done, will probably not be enough to reduce the total amount to under 800. From my observations during this fun, yet mind-dulling work, I have noticed articles that need different sub categories. Therefore, I propose the following:

  • {{cvg-fict-stub}}, which would deal with ALL fictional elements in computer and video games, including characters, locations, races, groups, everything. There's lots of these articles out there.
  • {{cvg-bio-stub}}, for all articles related to biographies on CVG people (designers and musicians, mostly) A CVG musicians stub already exists, and should become a redirect to here, IMO.
  • {{action-cvg-stub}}, to supplement the previous genre list, basically for all games that don't fall under previous categories. Normally I would find the term too vague, but it seems to be necessary.

Other articles not covered here seem to include gaming websites, magazines, hardware (controllers, systems, etc), software (emulators, map editors, engines, etc), gaming terminology, and...I think that's about it. I'm not sure if any of these are common enough to warrant individual stub categories, but they may be worth keeping in mind for the future. Opinions? --ADeveria 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As there appear to be no objections after one week, I shall proceed in creating these stubs. ADeveria 12:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African Union stubs

moved to correct place on page Grutness...wha?

I think it's time the african union had there own stubs in the same manner as the European Union. I direct you to the articles Court of African Justice, or Permanant Representitives Committee for examples. Something along the lines of Template:AU-stub would be nice. Briaboru 17:30 26 September 2005

Why? How many stubs already in existence are there that would fit here? Considering that {{Africa-stub}} is not overful, I fail to see the need given that a quick glance indicated that few if any of those stubs would relate to the AU. The standard for creation is usually a minimum of 60 existing stubs, Caerwine 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - Africa-stub isn't overpopulated, so there's no real need. In any case, AU would be an inappropriate name (it's the ISO code for Australia, and could also easily stand for astronomical units or gold). Grutness...wha? 11:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture or Fad stubs

moved to correct place on page Grutness...wha?

You will have to excuse my ignorance; I am a newbie at all of this. I have taken an interest in Pop culture and Fads and categorizing and creating articles for these categories. I think a fad or pop culture stub would be appropriate. Obviously a pop culture stub would cover the fad one too, so probably the better choice. Here are a few that I've picked out, but I've run across many short articles, and plan on at creating more stubs as well. I realize that some of these articles have other categories, but I feel a pop culture stub could create a more appropriate response for many of the articles. For example, you can put pet rock under toys, but people interested in pet rocks would more than likely be so due to its pop culture impact. Yes? no? I don't know how to make a stub either. So if Yea, then maybe one of you oldtimer wizzes can do that for me. If not, I will look it up :D

(Wrinehart 07:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • As an additional note, I only began categorizing fads under pop culture by decade two nights ago. Since then there have been at least two other folks categorizing this way as well. I think the stub could expand the pop culture area of Wikipedia. :) (Wrinehart 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • I don't believe this is a necessary stub category. There already is a {{culture-stub}}. And there are plenty of other categories (fashion, games, food, dance, toys, vocabulary, music) that would cover most anything falling into "popular culture". Also, to my mind, several of the articles listed here, while slight, hold their own as articles, not stubs, and are best left in their current categories. J. Van Meter 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not believe there would be a significant number of people interested in Pop Culture type articles specifically, and want to expand on these? Culture is a very broad area, whereas a pop culture stub would cover a large variety of topics and is still nowhere near as specific as some of the proposed stubs I've seen. Wrinehart 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are "interested in Pop Culture type articles." But we don't judge or approve stub template proposals by the number of interested users. So far, only 7 articles have been mentioned that could use this stub. I'm not asking you to name every single article that could possibly use this template, but what I haven't heard in this discussion is an indication of how many pop culture or fad stub articles Wikipedia currently has. Will this stub template/category reach the threshold of roughly 50 to 60 articles? Aecis 13:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-navy-stub}} vs. {{US-mil-ship-stub}}; {{RN-ship-stub}}

Already proposed above, and no strident objections, but I haven't gotten around to doing either, or indeed actually deciding which. I'd be inclined to go with the latter, simply because it'll be a pretty large category in and of itself, without throwing in "other" US Naval stubs besides, and to preserve them within the current sub-tree (well, sub-dag, actually, but...) of the hierarchy they're in at present: {{mil-ship-stub}}, which itself is over 700 stubsworth. Similarly, there are more than enough for "Royal Navy ship stubs" -- in fact, there's plenty for two categories, should anyone prefer to have {{HMS-ship-stub}} and {{RFA-ship-stub}}. Alai 20:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for stubs with abbreviations for specific branches of military, could use {{USN-ship-stub}}. Do any other branches of the US military have ships, besides Navy and Coast Guard? What about for the British military? --Mairi 21:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The US Army has some ships of its own for transporting its stuff from one place to another without having to depend upon the good graces of the navy, and it operated the riverine warcraft for a during the early part of the US Civil War before the Navy took those vessels over. Caerwine 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the extra hyphen, I think I'd feel happier with US-mil-ship-stub and UK-mil-ship-stub. It has the advantage that if we needed to split further it could be done by understandable names - I don't want to have to look up the name of the Chinese or Russian navy every time I find an article that needs stubbing, for instance. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went with Grutness's names for these. I hestitate to sort the RFAs in with the HMSs, though: they're both rather lengthy to simply lump them back in together. Perhaps {{UK-aux-ship-stub}} as a sub-cat? Alai 03:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ethiopia-stub}}

I've been looking through the African stub categories and have found so far 70 stubs that could fit in this category. The majority are biography stubs, but not enough to do a {Ethiopia-bio-stub} according to procedure and {Africa-stub} needs the help far more than {Africa-bio-stub} does at present. Caerwine 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia-stub might be viable on its own - it is fairly unique culturally. other than that, see my compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. Grutness...wha? 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Missouri-geo-stub}}

I would like to propose a stub for locations in Missouri seperate from the Midwestern stub. There are several stub locations in Missouri. Here is the proposed stub:

  This Missouri ___location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Category:Midwestern US geography stubs

Rt66lt 02:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several is right. 43 to be precise, as of two weeks ago. There are quite a number of states with far more stubs than that that have yet to be split off (at last count, Missouri was 15th in line of un-split states). When Missouri gets to 75 stubs it will be split off, as is the case with all other states to reach that level. As of now, though, it can hold its place in the queue. Don't worry - US states get checked every two weeks to see which ones have reached the threshold, so it won't be too long after it does before it gets added in. Grutness...wha? 04:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ghana-stub}}

I've come across some 70 stubs that would be able to use this stub, scattered over a wide variety of Africa related stub categories. Probably more, especially since compared to some people, I'm conservative when it comes to applying country level stubs. Most of these do not have {Africa-stub}, but rather one of its sub types, so it won't help that much with trimming that cat, but that cat isn't in need of serious surgey at the moment anyway. Caerwine 21:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also been a lot of growth recently in the Ghana geo-stubs (which went from 30 two weeks ago to 70 now) - it could well be worth proposing a geo-stub for it too, especially given the size of AfricaW-geo-stub. The one problem with Ghana-stub is that there are two distinct and unrelated places: modern Ghana and ancient Ghana (which was approximately modern Mauritania to Chad). Would Ghana-stub deal with both? Grutness...wha? 00:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting just the modern Ghana, which means I would have been more selective if you count also includes ancient Ghana. By my count there are only about 45 Ghana geo stubs and I completed that census just a day ago. Were all those stubs in {AfricaW-geo-stub}? Caerwine 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Ghana's stub population, as I said, is growing fast! Grutness...wha? 04:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See compromise suggestion under Sudan-stub, below. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian highways

Moved from the Stub type page I noticed a significant amount of Canadian highways in Category:Road stubs. We should create a new stub type.

This Canadian highway related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

--69.215.243.239 23:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This is not the page for that - take the suggestion to WP:WSS/P
  2. What's wrong with the already existing {{Canada-road-stub}}?

Grutness...wha? 04:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals, October 2005

{{canada-mil-stub}}

Aren't I quite the mil(-stub)itarist these days. I can't guarantee this is "viable", but I'm guessing it's there or thereabouts: google finds 36 articles already double-stubbed, which is likely to be an underestimate for several reasons, and I've been surprised at how many Canadian regimental stubs and the like I've come across. Would further help slim down {{mil-stub}}. Alai 23:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created. Alai 21:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US-hist-stub

Some sub categories might be a good idea.

  • US-precolonial-hist-stub
  • US-colonial-hist-stub
    • US-UK-colonial-hist-stub for the eastern US
    • US-FR-colonial-hist-stub for the Louisana purchase area
    • US-ES-colonial-hist-stub for the southwest

I have been working on some French and Indian War British Forts in WV. They are relavent to UK and US history. We are not supposed to us two stubs, but to be accurate you need to, a US-UK-colonial-hist-stub would solve that problem, and these suggested stubs will define the era that the historical place or event belongs in. It will give it more context. --71Demon 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial thought is no. Double stubbing is not expressly prohibited, and the stub names proposed above are way too confusing to be useful. Can you give us some examples of some articles you've been working on? Here's one I've worked on recently: Fort Loudoun (Tennessee)—it's double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and US-struct-stub. Another is Spanish Florida—double-stubbed with US-hist-stub and Spain-stub (would be Spain-hist-stub if it existed). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{archaeologist-stub}}

I've counted over 100 articles already that could use this stub tag. --Etacar11 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tanzania-stub}}

A total of 78 stubs found of which 55 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{Tanzania-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaE-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. Caerwine 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see comment below. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sudan-stub}}

A total of 83 stubs found of which 62 are geo stubs. There's enough to support either this or {{Sudan-geo-stub}} but not both, and since {AfricaN-geo-stub} is not in need of splitting, I'd prefer to go with the general stub instead of the geo-stub. Caerwine 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unsure about all this. Personally, I hate having separate country-stubs without country-geo-stubs, because I seem to spend almost my entire time on wikipedia replacing geo-stub templates from people who think that because there's a Eucovia-stub but no Eucovia-geo-stub they can replace the existing Asia-geo-stub with an existing non-geo template... which means we never get to find out whether a Eucovia-geo-stub template is needed. Take the case for Tanzania, above - there are 78 stubs in total, of which 55 are geo-stubs. 55 isn't enough for a separate geo-stub category, but some well-meaning sorter is bound to remove the AfricaE-geo-stub template from these articles if tanzania-stub is made, so we won't find out when a further 20 or so stubs take tanzania over the threshold for a geo-stub. What's more, since the geo-stub categories and the country-stub categories work in parallel, what you're actually saying is that there are 21 stubs suitable for Sudan-stub if geo-stubs are excluded. for that reason, I oppose the creation of both of these, especially since with 67 geo-stubs, Sudan is a country I've already mentioned as a potential candidate for its own geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise situation might be to break Africa-stub up in the same way that Africa-geo-stub is broken up - into the five regions. Thatw ould allow all the non-geo-stubs of Tanzania, Kenya, etc, to get a slightly more specific AfricaE-stub, for instance. It would make sense, because the coutlres of several of the countries in each region do overlap to some extent. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a matter of which is the lesser of two evils. Ideally, if we have an {XYZ-geo-stub} we'd have also have an {XYZ-stub} to be its parent in addition to {XY-geo-stub}. So the question is, is the lack of proper parenting worse than having to double stub with {XYZ-stub} and {XY-geo-stub}? Perhaps we should lower the stub threshold for parent stub types? Caerwine 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. That's definitely possible. My main beef is with having XYZ-stub but not XYZ-geo-stub, since XY-geo-stubs tend to get replaced rather than there being double-stubbing. Which makes it difficult to work out when a new geo-stub category is worthwhile. Having said that, there are now significant numbers of geo-stub categories - more countries have them than don't. Also, there is a certain amount of cultural overlap with many of these countries, especially ones like Kenya and Tanzania which have spent considerable parts of their recent history linked into a larger federation. Ideally, I think the ultimate situation would be for all countries to have both XY-stub and XY-geo-stub categories. The only problem are those where there's clearly little call for both. (Yeah, I know - I've simply restated the problem rather than offering any solutions) Grutness...wha? 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{japan-geo-stub}}

Due to the the total of about 4000 articles in this one category, I am proposing splitting this stub category into stubs specific to each prefecture. Though this would create 47 new categories, if divided evenly, there would be about 80 per category. This, I believe, is much more easier than dividing by regions, where some prefectures fall into a grey area between regions. It would also be easier to categorize by prefectures, since the prefecture is almost always mentioned in every article in the current category. I am 100% willing to do any work necessary in creating the new stubs and recategorizing the articles.

-Nameneko 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of split of this has been needed for some time. Forty-seven new stubs sounds a little like overkill, but I can't think of any other way (except maybe to do what has been done with English counties and US states - count up which prefectures have the most stubs, then split them off first, just in case they're not evenly divided). I'd advise at least having a good look at how the English counties have been done to give you a template (no pun intended) for how to do the split, including things like standard namings for templates and categories. If you need any advice in it, I'd be only too happy to help (as, I'm sure, would the others of us who have been working primarily on geo-stubs, like Fingers-of-Pyrex). Grutness...wha? 06:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've thought of a plan on how to split these up using, like you said, the US-geo-stubs:
  • japan-geo-stub (this should include ambiguous locations, if any, and historic locations that don't fit into other categories)
    • [region]-geo-stub (x8, by merging Hokuriku, Koshin'etsu, and Tokai into Chubu, which, though usually split up into the previous three regions in Japan, should be okay for categorization. I'm saying this because the three subregions of Chubu are variously defined. This will, though, as said earlier, make categorization a little more difficult, but I think I have a way to do that too)
      • [prefecture]-geo-stub (x47 at most)
        • [subprefecture]-geo-stub (x???, should only apply to Hokkaido, if anything. I'm doubtful that any prefecture-stub category will get big enough for this)
Categorizing by region: A plan might be to go through and try to weed out articles one region at a time, as trying to memorize what prefectures are in what region might be difficult. After region sorting, there will probably be about 400-500 articles in each, but still a much more manageable number for finding major prefectural stubs needed.
-Nameneko 06:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After we've split {{bio-stub}}, this one can be made our Great Task. I generally like the idea of splitting into (region)-geo-stubs, as 47 seems to much to me. 8, or even 10, is just fine. Since 400-500 articles are going to be there in each subcat, one or more of them will probably go beyond 800, and in this case we'll have to split there large (region)-geo-stubs into (prefecture)-geo-stubs. Estimation count would be helpful, of course, but it can be made after, say, 200 stubs are sorted. As for memorizing which prefecture is in which region, I'm ready to write it down on a sheet and keep it near my computer :) Conscious 17:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that this category is gaining recognition. It's definately in need to attention. I don't think it'll be necessary to memorize prefectures until after the articles have already been sorted into region categories. I think they ones should include:
Once these are sorted by region, there should be a count of what prefectures deserve a subcategory. My proposal is between 70 and 100 articles, depending on how many there are in proportion to all of the other ones. I looked through some of the current category and found some articles that will probably stay in the japan-geo-stub category, such as Abeno Plain, which is from a former province.
-Nameneko 20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there was a dicussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Japan geography stubs, but I have asked the participants to move the discussion here.

I am doing a census of the Japan-geo-stubs now. It will will take me one or two more days to complete. However, if one were to extrapolate from the first 1200 stubs, most prefectures would reach the 60 stub threashold. The exceptions would be:

Fukui, Gunma, Ishikawa, Kagawa, Miyagi, Miyazaki, Nara, Saga, Tochigi, Toyama, Yamagata, and Yamaguichi.

There are also some prefectures that it would be iffy to assert will make it based on a projection on the census to date:

Iwate, Kanagawa, Kochi, Kyoto, Nagasaki, Oita, Osaka, Shiga, Tottori, Wakayama, Yamanashi.

However, if my extrapolation holds true, then the eleven prefectures that don't gain stub categories of their own, plus those stubs that can't be sorted down to a single prefecture will have less than 600 stubs combined, which is small enough to not require regional subsplits. Caerwine 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


If we hold a threshold for which prefectures get their own subcategory, wouldn't this mean that as more articles are upgraded and the stub count decreases, we'd have to constantly reevaluate which subcategories need to be consolidated into the region parent? If a subcategory is made for most prefectures, then why not make one for all of them (one per prefecture) without a threshold? It will avoid some issues down the road, at the expense of a more complicated system right now. Neier 22:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same complication we have now for countries. If there were only a couple of prefectures left without a stub, I could see going ahead and creating them, but it looks like there will be about 10 prefectures that won't reach the 60 stub threshold and about another 10 that wouldn't make it, if we used a higher threshold of 75. 60 looks to be about the right threshold level if we want to avoid using region stub stypes. If we go higher, we'll need tio use region stub types to get Japan-geo-stub into the desireable area of <800 stubs or lower. Anyway, I'll prepare a rather verbose proposal for people to pick apart once I've finished my census. About half-done now and will probably finish sometime tomorrow. Caerwine 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Namemneko's comment about trying to memorise what is in what prefecture, there's no no need for that. Use a spreadsheet - same as I did with English geo-stubs. I copied and pasted the list of articles from the category into a spreadsheet, then noted alonside each which county they were in. Most were in only one - rivers and some mountains were about the only things that crossed boundaries. Then you've got a handy reference that can be sorted by county (or in your case prefecture) when you want to split off a stub type. Region sounds a better system for now (then again I know little of Japanese geography - my initial though was splitting off Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku and working from there) - see how many big prefectures there are later. I doubt it will get to subprefectures, but you never know. Since Caerwine's happy doing this one, I'll leave it to him (her?) to keep track of what goes where (but I'll help with restubbing, of course). Grutness...wha? 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog Since Hokkaido is an island, a region, and a prefecture, all rolled up into one, plus it by far has the most stubs of any of the prefectures, but not so many as to justify having stub types for its subprefectures, so it's a certainty that we'll be creating a {{Hokkaido-geo-stub}} no matter how we decide to handle splitting {{Japan-geo-stub}}. I've got 2,800 stubs sorted at the moment, should finish tomorrow, but I have a date with a matress that shouldn't be delayed any longer. Caerwine 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finished my census of the 3854 Japan geo stubs (as of the time of my census): If people want a detailed list, I'll put it on my user page, but I don't see the need. Prefectures range in size from a low of 35 stubs for Kagawa Prefecture to a high of 293 for Hokkaido Prefecture. There are two reasonable schemes in my opinion, depending on whether people want region level stub stypes for Japan. (Island level just won't work, stubbing prefectures at a level to make a Shikoku geo stub viable, would make a Honshu geo stub category too large.

Scheme 1: Stub types separated out at 60 - prefectures only This would cause Prefecture level stub types to be created for all Prectures except: Fukui (45), Ishikawa (55), Kagawa (35}, Kanagawa (52}, Miyagi (57), Miyazaki (52), Nara (54), Saga (57), Shiga (55), Tottori (47), Toyama (45), Wakayama (57). There are 666 stubs that can't be assigned to a single prefecture, and with Chugoku, Kanto, and Shikoku having less than 60 stubs that would go to a prefecture, if we create stub types at this level, I can't see creating region stub types.

Scheme 2: Stub types separated out at 75 - prefectures and regions In addition to the above, Iwate, Kochi, Kyota, Nagasaki, Okinawa, Osaka, Tochigi, Tokushima, Yamagata, Yamaguichi, and Yamanashi wouldn't get stub types, but the load on {{Japan-geo-stub}} would be high enough that we'd need region level stub types, all of which would have more than 75 stubs and thus creatable, so we'd only be creating 4 fewer stub types (There would be too many to not divide Honshu into regions, so an Island only split would not be viable.

Based on the above, I recommend creating 35 stub types, one for each prefecture with 60 or more stubs. Caerwine 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like both of the ideas. However, creating 35 stub types begs the question of what to do with the rest of the stubs for prefectures with less than 60 stubs (many of them barely missing the cut). Should they stay in the japan-geo-stub category? The 75-limit idea allows for region stubs, which would at least put the remaining stubs in slightly more specific groups.
-Nameneko 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same as with the US and UK ones - they'd be left in the main Japan category and periodically recounted to see what other prefectures reach the threshold. (And for that reason it's worth keeping the spreadsheet of what stubs are in what prefecture!) Grutness...wha? 01:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that settles it. Here are the stubs we'll need to make and categorize, then:

-Nameneko 02:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to put the lists for some of these categories onto a page a bit like I did with User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits, then we could all help sort these stubs! :) Grutness...wha? 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I actually meant put the list of which stub articles you know belong to each category there! Grutness...wha? 07:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. I'll work on it then.
-Nameneko 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my list of stubs that don't conviently include the prefecture name in the article title to Grutness' page for the stub types above. Caerwine 05:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created all these. Conscious 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{California-stub}}

Since all of the other California stubs are properly named (e.g. {{California-south-geo-stub}}), should a proper California-stub be created, either as a redirect from, or as a replacement for, the {{Calif-stub}}. BlankVerse ∅ 06:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of this sounding like a vote of RFA, I thought we had one! About time Calif-stub was renamed. Go to, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm like you—I swear that there used to be a California-stub that used to be a redirect. BlankVerse ∅ 10:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of road stubs, part 2

Per the discussions above I propose:

I suppose that New York and West Virginia could be abbreviated... {{US-road-stub}} will probably be down to under 200 articles if these stubs go through and when I finish classifying the ones I have approved above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a reasonable idea, but the names need work. IIRC, {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} (or maybe {{NewYork-statehighway-stub}}?) is the usual standard we're trying to keep to. Anyone? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NewYork-State-Highway-Stub works for me... I'm trying to maintain consistency with the other stub templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the existing state highway stubs capitalize "stub"... But I think there's something to be said for bringing atleast that bit inline with the rest of the stub templates. --Mairi 03:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm leaning towards capitalizing the stub, but... I'd prefer the consistency so that someone who is doing the classification won't type the wrong thing in by mistake. I'd remember the difference I hope but someone else might not. Otherwise it really doesn't matter to me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use the two-letter postal abbreviations. Please use the full state name, consistent with the split of the U.S. geo stubs. Please use {{WestVirginia-road-stub}}. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You seem to be ignoring the fact that all of the other state highway templates are named with the -State-Highway-Stub convention or something similar. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Russia-mil-stub}}; {{mil-vehicle-stub}}; {{mil-aero-stub}}/{{mil-aviation-stub}}

First two should be self-explanatory; quite a few of these in mil-stub, which is still about 1100-strong. In the latter case, two possible alternatives present themselves: military-aircraft-specific stubs (subcat of mil-stub and aero-stub; supercat of the existing {{bomber-stub}}); or military-aviation-in-general stubs (subcat of mil-stub and the (templateless and stubless) Category:Aviation_stubs; supercat of {{RAF-stub}} and the like). Or indeed, possibly both. Alai 06:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd slightly favour the aviation in general one. There are quite a large number of air-base stubs around. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October's geo-stubs

It's that time again! Yes, I've gone through all the categories, and the following look likely to pass muster:

Also, two that have been proposed before have increased enough that I'm no longer particularly against them: {{Kenya-geo-stub}} and {{Missouri-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These all look good. Morwen - Talk 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur on the Minnesota and Missouri. I'm going to go ahead and create them because of the four new already-created "rogue" U.S. state geo stubs that will be split off, too. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've put those two and the four rogues up on my stub-splitting page. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up the Cambs, Essex and Derbs ones now too. Can we have lists of places that need to be moved? Ta, :) Morwen - Talk 12:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heeey - I like this... I suggest the stubs and set up the lists, and someone else does all the re-stubbing ;) I'll put up the lists in the next few minutes (then I'm off to bed - it's 2.15 a.m. here!) - I'll help out with any that are left when I get up (oh, and I'll update the map in Category:England geography stubs now too). Grutness...wha? 13:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{book-stub}} substub proposals

Two ideas:

  • create a {{fiction-stub}} to at least separate out fiction novels that don't fit into existing fiction stubs like {{Hist-book-stub}} or {{sf-book-stub}}. I think a {{lit-book-stub}} for classic literature would also help; even though literature vs fiction is a POV thing, it's only a stub categorization question rather than a matter of article content.
  • break down book stubs by author nationality - at least substubs for US, UK, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Latin America, Japan, China, and Africa. We could create more nationality substubs as needed. Not only would this clean up the category, but a user with particular interest in, say, German literature could more easily find a whole set of stubs to expand. | Keithlaw 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ISTR we've actually gone the other way on the first idea - isn't there a nonfiction-book-stub? If so, then by default all the other should be fiction books. As to author nationality, it's a good idea in theory, but I think it may need a little more work. I suspect it's a little more complicated than simply categorising by author's nationality. The nationality of an author doesn't automatically tell you what nationality the book relates to: Why should Bill Bryson's book on Australia be categorised under US authored books, for instance? Grutness...wha? 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't speak for Keithlaw, but I think on the 1st point he's saying that if we could separate new fiction from classics. All that would need to be done is to make a 'classics-book-stub' and leave the fiction-stub as it is. I'm new to editing, but would this be a problem? A classic would be defined as a classic if someone put it there and no one had major objections. Plus it would just be for stubs, not necessarily an authoritative canonical judgment. I know that I would be primarily interested in working in this category since I like what is traditionally considered classics, and will likely ignore newer books and leave them to be categorized by those that are interested. It just seems like there's a rough 50-50 split between these two categories, and this would help. As to the second point, I think I'd need to hear more discussion.--JECompton 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • JECompton, you did a pretty good job of speaking for me after all. That was a big part of what I had in mind - further subdividing the fiction that's left in book-stub. Classics jumped out at me for two reasons. One, it's an area of interest to me and it's a big part of what I read (sounds like you're the same way). Two, I would bet that a lot of visitors to Wikipedia are looking for info on classics; for example, students looking for info to help them write book reports or essays. As for Grutness' objection on nationalities, I was only talking about applying those substubs to fiction. Bryson's book on Australia would go into the nonfiction stub. For example, Stendhal's The Charterhouse of Parma is considered French literature, even though most of the novel takes place in Italy. | Keithlaw 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... perhaps agaiin it's a case of working in the other direction - breaking out a classics-book-stub first and seeing what's left. I'm willing to be swayed by others here who have done more work on this category, though, and I'm a little worried that "classics' could be somewhat POV. ISTR User:DESiegel and user:*Kat* were doing most of the work on the book stubs, but I'm not sure whether either is still part of this wikiproject (it may be worth putting a note on their user pages, though, see if they've got any suggestions) Grutness...wha? 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grutness, I agree with you that classics vs non-classics is POV, but if it's just for stub-sorting, it shouldn't be a big deal because in theory that's not permanent. Besides, if better stub-sorting means more stubs get expanded, I'll take that benefit over any detriment from POV in stub identification. | Keithlaw 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a sort through the book stubs. There were an fair number of undersorted or missorted stubs, correcting those brought the total to just a little over 800 book stubs. If anthologoes of short stories go in the proposed {{story-stub}} then this cat will easily go below 800 stubs. Rather than what's been proposed, I think what's needed is one more genre-based stub. A stub for the spy/techno-thrillers would easily get over the 60-stub limit, the only problem is what to call it? Caerwine 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "suspense-book-stub?" But back to the point, my goal in this proposal wasn't so much getting the category under 800 but making it easier for would-be editors to find stubs they want to expand. Just because the category is down to 750 stubs doesn't mean I'm going to browse it, but a classic-lit-stub category with 100 stubs isn't so intimidating. | Keithlaw 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I counted 32 current book-stubs that would qualify for classic-lit-stub using a very conservative selection process. If I was a little less conservative - including more 20th century novels - the total would be about 55. | Keithlaw 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the need isn't that dire, and although it's only for stub-sorting, I see minor (or major) discussions coming up as to the question of what is classical and what isn't; but I like the idea of the {{suspense-book-stub}} or something to the effect of a [[tl|darkwave-book-stub}}, maybe also to include the beloved Ctulhu-stuff :) Lectonar 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, someone proposed a {{Cthulhu-stub}} a few months back (it'll be in the archive somewhere). I found about 60 stubs it would suit, but the propsal was rejected. perhaps it's time to revisit it? Grutness...wha? 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I'm all for a spy-book-stub or something like that. 'Suspense' seems a bit ambiguous to me--it seems to connote light horror or intense action, or perhaps even psychopathic thriller. I'm not even sure all spy novels necessarily rely on suspense. Is spy-book-stub too exclusive against the techno side? Also, I'm glad to hear about the short story stub--I hadn't thought of that, but was annoyed by the many of those that were a pain. As to the classical stub, If it's not too many, I guess no worries. If there does seem to be an overwhelming number of Booker, Nobel, and canonical books, I would be for this separation.--JECompton 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two literature stubs

While resorting misplaced stubs that were in {{book-stub}} there were two types of stubs that I sent back to {{lit-stub}} for now that I think are deserving of their own stubs:

Comments? Caerwine 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd definitely support a fictional locations stub - quite a few of these turn up in the geo-stub category. Given that the main category is called Fictional locations, though, perhaps {{fict-___location-stub}} would be a better name? That would allow for fictional buildings, planets, and the like, which don't really count in the normal run of geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road stubs

What happened to this section? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It got archived. I didn't see a clear consensus, but on the surface it looks like people are creating stubs and applying them consistently. Is there anything else to discuss? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the more recent one got clobbered when someone added a new section; I've put it back. --Mairi 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Euro-stub}} {{Asia-stub}}

We've got a classic chicken and egg type situation here. The easiest way to show that a stub type would be viable is to find a stub type that is at >100 and show that it can produce a sub type that has >50 stubs. However for the geographical based splits of various categories, there is no parent for the lightly represented European and Asian countries, in which stubs can be put until there can be shown there is a sufficient quantity to warrant a stub type of its own, and the result is that it difficult to show that the category would be viable. Caerwine 16:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a very good point. Actually, you could make a case for saying "fifty stubs or child categories" -which should be easy in the case of Europe at least. The situation's analogous to the geo-stubs, though. in that the only way I know when there are enough stubs to split off for a country is to see how many there are in the regional category. Some of those regional categories are little more than parents for the child categories now, and I'd see the same eventually happening with these. On the same subject, do we have all the other continental ones ? We have South America, Central America, Caribbean and Africa, what about Oceania-stub? There's probably little need for an Antarctica-stub at present, but that might also be worth a thought... Grutness...wha? 06:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Oceania stub and has been for some time, but no NorthAm stub. Since there is a complete set of North American subcats and most pre-Colonial border stubs would take pre-Columbian-stub in any case, I'm not certain there is much of a need for a NorthAm stub. (How many 17th-18th century Iroquois-related stubs and/or NAFTA-related stubs are we likely to have?) Caerwine 15:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sky television stub

A sky stub with the logo, similar to Category:BBC_stubs, would be very useful. We already have a Category:Sky One programmes. -Chaosfeary 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Portugal-bio-stub}}

There are over 200 stubs in {{Portugal-stub}} and there are easily over 60 biography stubs in that stub category alone, so this split seems like an obvious no-brainer. Caerwine 01:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I ran into quite a few Portuguese people stubs while sorting through {{bio-stub}}. There's certainly enough stubs for this tag. Robert 00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats of Sportbio-stub

Following discussion at the very bottom of this page, it looks like the following four sport-specific bio-stubs would be useful:

Given the different meanings of "athlete" in Commonwealth and US English, comment is particularly welcome on the naming of this one, and also for the four categories which would be associated with these templates. Grutness...wha? 09:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I suggest that we go with "athlete-stub" by that name, as "trackandfield-bio-stub" is too horrible to contemplate; and just be careful in the wording of the template message and category. Though just to be devil's advocate: are track-bio- and field-bio- separately viable? I'm not convinced they're at all clearer, though, even in American English. Alai 05:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Track-bio-stub could have the problem that sometimes "track and field" is sometimes shortened to just "track" in casual speech. Field-bio-stub also sounds abit unnatural to me. Splitting it would pose problems for bio-stubs relating to decathalon or heptathalon which fall under both categories. I think "athlete-stub" is the best choice, as long as the template and category are appropriately worded. --Mairi 06:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly the jumping events are usually regarded as field events (I used to high jump myself), but many athletes do both long jump and sprints. I'd favour athlete-stub myself - I think it can be explained in the template easily enough, and if the category is Category:Track and field athlete stubs there should be no problem. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest {{boxer-stub}} instead of {{boxingbio-stub}} - it's nonstandard but more intuitive. I'd also add {{rugbybio-stub}} to the list - this Google search suggests there's over 60 rugby bios (league and union combined). sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that first one - I've just realised there's going to be promoters, trainers, etc. in there as well as pugilists. For that reason, {{athleticsbio-stub}} might get round the whole "athlete" confusion as well. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Automobile stubs

Just had a look at Category:Automobile stubs, and the list has grown quite long. Propose to split into car manufacturers, so that all cars produced by Ford, would be listed in {{ford-auto-stub}}, all by GM in the {{gm-auto-stub}} and so on. bjelleklang 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rather than by manufacturers, I think a better immediate split would be US-auto-stub, UK-auto-stub and Japan-auto-stub. Along with those that don't qualify in those subcats that would probably cut the category into four fairly even pieces. If any of those need further splitting, then manufacturer would be an obvious next level down. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably be a good short-term solution, but sooner or later, these lists would probably also have to be split up again, with quite a lot more articles to sort. I still think that creating subcategories based on manufacturer would be a better solution. bjelleklang 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that either proposed split is a good idea. I'm doubtful that a company based split is particularly viable. There are an awful lot of stubs that come from companies that only produced a few models and thus would never leave {{auto-stub}} save by becoming not a stub. Furthermore, editors interested in the models of a single manufacturer could easily enough start with that manufacturer's article and see what models are in need of being de-stubbed. A country based split also has its problems. Is Chrysler US or German? Is Jaguar UK or US, etc? So what do I propose instead?
  • First of all, there clearly are enough stubs for {{auto-corp-stub}} This would have the added benefit of also helping to trim the Corporation stubs down somewhat.
  • Secondly, An era-based split for the car models themselves. The only real problem is defining the eras. I would suggest the following, but I am flexible concerning the names and periods.

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

  • Sounds fair, although I suspect that many stub sorters will get the categories confused. BTW, shouldn't the first one be veteran-auto-stub? Or are veteran cars called brass cars in the US? Grutness...wha? 22:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that what in the UK are called veteran cars (before 1905) and Edwardian cars (1905-1918) are lumped together in the US as Brass Era cars. However, while the end of WWI is of fairly universal significance as a historical marking point, the death of Queen Vicky is a pretty much a UK thing. I fudged the categories slightly as well for ease of use, as I figure the end of WWI, the end of WWII, and the end of Disco, three notable disasters in human history, should be easy to remember for the amateur stub sorter. Caerwine 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
QV was 1901, but I get your point. As to the death of disco, I thought that was a celebration :). I'll accept the death of John Lennon as the third notable disaster though. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that I'm still not convinced, as there are close to 1400 stubs in the category. If we sort by production era, I don't think that it'll make the problem go away, only help to make some of the subcategories somewhat shorter. I do not agree with your argument that any future author could look at the manufacturer's article, as there are no way of telling if all models are listed there! Although your suggestion was good, it would involve quite a lot of work compared to sorting by manufacturer, as you would have to check every article, so I still think that sorting by manufacturer is a better idea. bjelleklang 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia-stub

I've been having a discussion with someone who is busily sorting out the Catalan articles on Wikipedia, and he's keen for there to be a separate Catalonia-stub, to be used as a secondary stub with Spain-bio-stub and Spain-geo-stub. The Spanish stub categories overall are a little on the thin side, but I think it should be possible to get close to 100 stubs in a Catalonia category quite easily. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German bio stubs

I was sorting through {{Germany-bio-stub}} to see if there were wnough for a German actor stub and as long a was going through those 700 or so stubs, I also checked to see if there were any other groups wotrh sorting out. Here's what I'd like to propose:

 

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

template request

I just started the Tank truck article and found no {{Truck-stub}} under "Transportation" so I added the generic {{stub}} template. It was soon found out (good for you guys) and it was replaced with the {{Van-stub}} which doesn't really fit very well. Anyone feeling creative out there, I think we should have a logo-enhanced {{Truck-stub}} template (a tank truck hauling several thousand gallons of gasoline/petrol ain't a van). Thanks, --hydnjo talk 00:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that category would be useful - question is, though, do you want it for trucks, or things like the article you mentioned, which is a lorry? And what about artics, which are a little bit bigger than lorries and a whole lot bigger than trucks (they're the same as the whole truck and trailer, in fact)? In other words, the term truck is used differently in differen countries - what I call a truck is what you'd probably call the tractor part of a truck. So we need a term that's a bit more language-neutral. Perhaps Bigrig-stub would be a solution...? Grutness...wha? 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Tank truck article will include small (home hydroseeding slurry or lawn fertilizer/pest control, up to 1000 gal.) to medium (local delivery heating oil or home septic removal, 1000-3000 gal.) to large (major delivery gasoline/petrol, over 3000 gal.) sized trucks. I'm not yet sure about the exact breakpoints so the examples may be imprecise. More importantly, the truck-stub template that I'm requesting would apply to most of the vehicles in the List of truck types or any other vehicle that someone thinks is a truck. The Bigrig-stub idea seems a bit narrow as there are small and medium trucks. I'm just hoping for something more descriptive than the {{van-stub}}notice that is now on the article. If it turns out that I'm making an unreasonable or undoable request or if the word "truck" is too ambiguous for a stub then I'll make do with what already exists.
Or, we could have two templates, {{truck-stub}} and {{lorry-stub}} so as to avoid a difficult international catchall. Or, how about a {{truck/lorry-stub}} or if you prefer a {{lorry/truck-stub}} template.
I understand the need to have some kind of triage to deal with stub proliferation but I don't think that "truck" is all that esoteric.

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

I think it would make sense to have some kind of generic {{vehicle-stub}} under Transport, and then {{auto-stub}}, {{van-stub}}, {{bus-stub}}, {{motorcycle-stub}} and any others we need could be subcategories, if there seems to be sufficient demand for them. Odd vehicles that fall through the cracks in the definitions or that might be called a "lorry" somewhere and a "semi-trailer" elsewhere could just go into {{vehicle-stub}} until the semantics get sorted out. GTBacchus 21:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance here but you think that a {{vehicle-stub}} should supercede "truck"? My kid's bike is a vehicle! Tell you what, when you folks figure it all out, please as a courtesy (you know where I live) , let me know for future reference. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 22:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hydnjo, a vehicle is any "non-living means of transportation." This includes trucks/lorries. So it is obvious that {{vehicle-stub}} is about the only natural supercessor to {{truck-stub}}, just like {{sport-stub}} supercedes {{football-stub}}. Aecis 22:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility would be to have a generic vehicle-stub as a catch-all and to have something for trucks/lorries etc. if there's a general vehicle stub, then double hyphenating becomes an option, and we could make goods-vehicle-stub or haulage-vehicle-stub for anything from panel vans right up to Kenworths. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I caused so much anguish over a damn {{truck-stub}} request. Prior to the "stub sorting" effort I would have just made the template myself. In deference to your effort I held back and sought your approval. I also feel confident that this neuron flurry could have been put to better use. My apologies for bringing up such a mundane subject and wasting so much of your time. I continue to be supportive of your project and hope that it will serve us well. --hydnjo talk 07:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh :) Don't worry - this is standard practice here. And for good reason - changing the name of an article takes a couple of clicks - changing the name of a template-category combination takes a hell of a lot of effort, since it requires null-edits on every article that carries the template. So we want to be sure it's done right first time. I'm pretty sure that there will be a usable stub category soon - it's only the minor details that will take a bit of time. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{footybio-stub}}

(from WP:SFD) This category has been proposed for renaming from Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs. At the same time, a split seems in order, as there are currently over 2200 stubs. I've gone through about 15% of them and sorted them by continent, and counted Europe 214, Africa 54, South America 24, North America 16, Oceania 13, Asia 12. Within Europe the two biggest countries are England (59) and Scotland (21), with no others over 12. I'd suggest the following split:

Europe could possibly be split further in future, if other countries experience a spurt of stub growth. I've also simplified the category names, leaving out the word "soccer" where "football" is unambiguous (see also the subcats of Category:Football (soccer) stubs). sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - (BTW, this is Grutness, currently not logged in). 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I have now gone through Category:European football club stubs. I already proposed {{Sweden-footyclub-stub}} (45 stubs) and {{Scotland-footyclub-stub}} (58). To that I would like to add {{NI-footyclub-stub}} (Northern Ireland, currently 35 stubs) and {{Belgium-footyclub-stub}} (41 stubs). A search through the football clubs by nation categories might bring these countries above threshold level. Next in line would be Italy (currently 29 stubs) and Finland (26). I would also like to move all the club articles that haven't been restubbed continentally yet to a new club stub reservoir, {{footyclub-stub}}. Any thoughts on this? Aecis 14:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy stub

moved from immediately under the message saying "don't put proposals here"

read Category talk:Comedy for the message. (unsigned comment from anon)

FWIW, the proposal there simply says "We should make a comedy stub." (In other words, the suggestion that we should look there is longer than simply repeating the proposal would have been!)

Sub-stubs of {{Org-stub}}

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

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

  • Well, for a start you don't need the second and fourth ones: {{Party-stub}} or {{Honor-stub}} already exist (the latter for honor societies - we can use that spelling because these things don't exist outside the US). Charity-stub would probably be very useful. As for "Labor-union-stub", it suffers from the problem that honor-stub can avoid by being a US-only phenomenon; most of the English-speaking world calls them Labour unions. Union-stub might be a reasonable name, though. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just sampling the fraternities and sororities from beginning with Alpha, I don't get the impression that they're mostly honor societies. I wouldn't be inclined to put a social-oriented or even a service-oriented fraternity in a category called "honor societies". {{Union-stub}} sounds perfectly reasonable - I hope it's clear that it refers to labor/labour unions, and not something else. I'm new on the project, so I don't know how it works, but I'd be willing to go through the pages of organization stubs and pull out specific types, I just need the go-ahead to create new templates, I guess. Or does someone with some kind of admin status have to do that? GTBacchus 08:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, anyone can do it (but make sure to follow the guidelines!) - the main thing is to wait for a week or so, though, for any debate, suggestions, etc. Sometimes the discussion lasts a bit longer than a week if some issues are unresolved (which is why some of the things on this page date back as far as August). As to honor-stub, I'm not from the US so I have no idea what the difference between a fraternity or sorority and an honor society is - I'd assumed they were identical. Perhaps the solution would be to change the scope of honor-stub. Hopefully someone who knows more about the subject can make some suggestions? Anyone...? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honor societies are special types of fraternities/sororities for those who are high academic acheivers. There are lots of other types of frats for professional groups, cultural groups and mostly just for socializing. It would probably be easier to just change what honor-stub is for since there arent many stubs in it. BL Lacertae 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean we would keep the name {{honor-stub}}, but redefine it to be a category for stubs relating to any fraternity or sorority, kind of like the way {{UN-stub}} now applies to any International Organization? I guess if I were to suggest an advantage to the name frat-stub, it would be that it makes such things as {{honor-frat-stub}} and {{service-frat-stub}} feasible; those would be more awkward if the main name were honor-stub. I don't know whether it's worthwhile to plan for so many fraternity and sorority stubs anyway. :-\ GTBacchus 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split of party-stub

While thinking about party-stub (see above, and also the proposal for the renaming of its category at sfd), I realised that it may well be time to consider splitting this one. Currently page 1 of the category doesn't get to the end of the letter B. While I realise that there are currently two sub-cats (Communist parties and Liberal parties), I can't help but wonder whether a better way of splitting this (at the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony) is by country and/or continent. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people know the political parties of a particular country better than they would know - say - Christian-Democrat parties worldwide. So I'd like to propose a rough tally followed by a division based on continent first, plus any countries that seem to have large numbers of parties. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 07:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continent would be an easy place to start, and it would sort things out quite a lot and most countries wouldn't get near threshold anyway. In fact, after a quick look through I'd like to propose:

  1. {{Africa-party-stub}}
  2. {{Asia-party-stub}}
  3. {{Euro-party-stub}}

All of which should easily reach 100 stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I lite the idea for the stub, but not the name (we avoid abbrevs wherever possible). This might be an exception to that rule though - I can't think of anything other referred to as JW (except for one of my country's top sportsmen). Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a fan of abbreviated stubs either; the only reason I suggested it was the Catholic one being {{RC-stub}}. Anyway, how's {{Jehovahs-Witnesses-stub}}? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===Computer and video game stubs=== (now created as see below) There's a cvg-stub currently used by over 2000 articles (way over the recommended 800 limit), which needs to be split up some. Here's a few suggestions of mine:

  • Stub category for game-only/game series pages. This would differentiate them from the game character/developer/other related CVG pages.
  • Perhaps these should then be split up too, I'm thinking per decade, 80's games, 90's games, 00's games
  • Stub category for game-related articles only. This would include characters, mods, game developers, publishers, etc.

I've noticed a "Nintendo" stub too, which may work as an alternative, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about it...the reason I'm thinking a decade split would be best is because it's the least overlapping system (compared to say, by console). --ADeveria 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the "by system" method is that a lot of games would end up having a bunch of stub tags (say PS2, Xbox, PC) which would seem to me rather cluttered (can you imagine the Lemmings article, if it were a stub?). Admittedly, it would be more helpful for those seeking only to work on articles for these systems. I'm not sure which of these two factors is more important. Series works fine, but does not significantly reduce total amount of CVG stubs. --ADeveria 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's another alternative I forgot to mention...there might still be a few games that fall into more than one genre, but generally that system should work... In defense the decades, I would say that for at least 99% of all games you can find the year released online, Nintendo has lists on its site for all its games for all its systems on its site, with release dates...and I don't believe people are likely to look for games by the stub categories as much as they would the regular categories. --ADeveria 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I am applying stub templates to articles, I want the contents of the article to tell me what type to use. I don't want to have to go off and research it. --TheParanoidOne 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I guess Lectonar's suggestion is probably the best then, although unfortunately some CVG stubs may also require research on what genre to pick for it. --ADeveria 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this discussion, ADeveria might not be very happy with me: I moved many stubs about game developers from corp-stub to cvg-stub. So I propose a new category: cvg-corp-stub, for the game developers. And because I created a large part of the mess, I volunteer to clear it up and fill the new category. Aecis 10:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's alright, go with whatever's appropriate. :) I'm all for a cvg-corp-stub, sounds great. I'll help out with that if I find the time to. ADeveria 12:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cvg-corp-stub would be a good addition. Also perhaps ones for characters. cvg-char-stub or something. I think these two would be a great start at the very least. K1Bond007 16:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Note cvg chars can already be put in {{fict-char-stub}}. If we create cvg-char-stub it should probably feed into that. DES (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to get things moving a little further here, I propose the following stubs:
I've tried to make the genre stubs as encompassing as possible, so shooter can be for 3rd person shooters as well as scrolling shooters, etc. I think "fantasy" might be a bit too vague for games, so I didn't add that. Please edit this list at will, however. ADeveria 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't racing cvg stubs simply be covered by sport-cvg-stub? Or would the category be too big and unwieldy? (I'v also edited down your list by one - you had platforrm-cvg-stub there twice!) Grutness...wha? 05:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grutness: the sport-cvg-stub is enough for now; let's just have a look at how it evolves; and I would (for the moment) refrain from the cvg-char-stub, becuase of the redundancies created with the fict-char-stub (see also my comments above: in sjort, many characters from games are also characters in books...) Lectonar 07:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, racing should be in sports (and thank you for removing the duplicate platform!). My argument for the cvg-char-stub would be that these specific stubs would help out those only interested in improving this particular type of fictional characters. But I can understand your point too, so I've removed it for now. There are two other genres I'm wondering if we should add, {{puzzle-cvg-stub}} and {{fighting-cvg-stub}}. Puzzle could be put under strategy perhaps, while fighting might be considered a sport... ADeveria 12:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many puzzle-cvg-stubs would there be ? (and I agree, fighting should, for the moment, go into sport-cvg-stub)...and I've come up with another one, hehe (being already a little older): adventure-cvg-stub (for the likes of Baphomets Curse or Monkey Island type games); but I really couldn't say if that genre is still going strong, being just the owner of an X-Box Lectonar 12:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure how many puzzle game stubs there are, so never mind that...I like the adventure game idea though, and not only because I'm a fan of those games myself...I believe it would also be good for "Action Adventure" games like Zelda, and any other modern 3D game that's not quite a shooter nor a platformer. Also, it could apply for ye olde text-based games too. ADeveria 13:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dost thou mean ye mighty olde infocom-dainties Lectonar 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not specifically, but probably, yeah. I know there's plenty of them made, and thus plenty of stubs will be made...ADeveria 22:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting this stub category out will definitely be a hell of a lot of work: there are currently 2,423 articles in the category... Aecis 18:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are no objections to the list of stubs mentioned above, and general approval continues, let's begin creating them starting Wednesday, August 24 (the required one week after suggestion). I've never made a stub or any other kind of template before, so help would be appreciated. :) ADeveria 13:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created about a dozen stub templates now, and about the same amount of "other" templates so I'm more than willing to help out with this "project". I'm not a gamer, so I'll focus on the sorting out the cvg-corp-stubs, but as I said, if you need help with the templates, I'm willing to help. Aecis 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove the {{rpg-cvg-stub}} from the list for now, as I get the feeling that these games could be thrown in with the {{adventure-cvg-stub}} too. If this category would get too big, we could add the rpg-cvg-stub. ADeveria 22:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By and large this looks like a pretty decent split. I'd argue though, as per my earlier suggestion, that {{online-game-stub}} would also be a sensible addition (being more a 'mode of play' than a genre, and not suffering especially from the 'stub escalation' problem). At least as regards "mmorgs" where 'onlineness' is an inherent part of game-play, as opposed to a CVG with an online mode/add-on. Alai 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the genre stubs have now been created, so anyone willing to can start adding to them. No images on the templates yet, however. If no one else beats me to it, I'll add the {{cvg-corp-stub}} shortly, too. And I personally have no problem with {{online-game-stub}}, your reasoning sounds good to me. ADeveria 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beat you to it ;) Aecis 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If {{online-game-stub}} is clearly restricted to games that are primarily/entirely online (MMORGs, MUDs, etc), I think it sounds like a good idea. --Mairi 18:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my conception. Perhaps slightly more specifically still, online computer role-playing games, if that fits the main category scheme a little more closely, and the stub numbers would suit that. Alai 04:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If it's going to be online role-playing games, perhaps call it online-rpg-stub? While it wouldn't quite match the main category system (which splits off MMORGs and MUD/MUCK/MU*s as seperate categories, without a general "online role-playing game" category), I'd be fine with a online role-playing game stub. --Mairi 00:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been around here for a long time. Anyway, why don't you consider moving the game developers and designers to some kind of cvg bio stub? --AllyUnion (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea; that would also cover the {{Video game music composer-stub}} up for deletion, with no real consensu so far...Lectonar 09:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate stub criterion

I have proposed text, at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposed "depth of coverage" standard to try to captue in words the notion thaqt what a stub is cannot be solely defined by a mere mechanical counting of words, sentances, or paragraphs. Please visit and comment. DES (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cities

User:Mairi mentioned problems with Melbourne stub categories at WP:WSS/D, and its something shared by all the Aussie cities. Currently there are a slew of incorrectly named templates and several which could do with combining for the sake of economy. Unfortunately (or fortunately), they also have WikiProjects of their own, so any changes will need to be coordinated with them. Currently, we have the following:

no stubs for Perth or Brisbane

What I would propose - subject to comments from the various WikiProjects - is the following revamp:

  • combining Adelaide�s three stub types into {{Adelaide-stub}} - there is no need for three categoiries this small when a combined stub would contain less than 100 stubs. It would also be far easier for WikiProject members to work on one category than have three separate ones.
  • Keeping {{canberra-stub}}, but renaming {{canberra suburb stub}} as {{Canberra-geo-stub}} and allowing it to cover the entirety of A.C.T. (there are a handful of non-suburb geo-stubs from ACT)
  • Renaming {{Melstub}} and {{Mel-suburb-stub}} as {{Melbourne-stub}} and {{Melbourne-geo-stub}} - also going through Melstub�s category and moving all the suburbs to the other category! There are over 100 of them in there!
  • Renaming {{Sydney suburb stub}} to {{Sydney-geo-stub}}.
  • Hobstub has never been used, and google suggests that there are probably only 20 or 30 stubs relating to Hobart in total. it is currently listed for deletion at WP:SFD. if it looks like it will be useful at some stage it can be recreated then (with a better name) - Perth-stub, Brisbane-stub and a separate Sydney-stub may also be viable at some stage (if requested here).
  • A separate Australia-struct-stub - as proposed further up the page - looks incresingly viable.

Grutness...wha? 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, Grutness - these could certainly do with standardising. I agree on all counts except for deleting the Hobart category, as it's sure to grow, and I don't see the point of leaving it without a stub category. However, renaming it to something more standard would help, too. Ambi 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mostly. I'm fine with retiring {{adelstub}} and {{adelaide transport stub}} into an {{adelaide-stub}}, but I would like {{adelaide suburb stub}} retained, even if it means being renamed {{adelaide-geo-stub}}. It is only underpopulated because there hasn't yet been a concerted effort at creating suburb stubs, as with the other cities, but this is bound to happen at one point or another.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a Canberra perspective I agree and think standardising these stub types accross Australia would be useful. I also don't think we should be removing the Hobart stub just because it isn't in use yet. Martyman 03:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra changes. Keeping some form of Hobart stub seems good so as to have a sensible naming scheme already in place. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go through all the Hobart stubs and tag them with whichever stub name is officially decided - {{Hobart-stub}}, by the looks of things? -- Chuq 04:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness throughout. Since it looks like there'll be a lack of consensus to delete the allegedly highly useful hobstub, can I suggest that failing this it be urgently: renamed; given a well-formed category; and actually populated with something like a number of stubs rising to a "viable even given the existence of a WikiProject" level? Having such categories around just in case they'll be useful one day pretty much runs a coach and four through the whole point of keeping stub categories reasonably organised, and more to the point, useful for attracting a critical mass of collectively interested editors. (Oops, forgot to "save" this after leaving browser window open -- thanks Chuq, I think that'd be a plan alright.) Alai 11:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would Hobart be better served by a {{Tasmania-stub}} category, and would any of the other cities be served by state-based categories? Susvolans ? 12:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, although the wikiproject is specifically for Hobart. Note too that a Tasmania-geo-stub is quite likely to be created sometime soon - there are over 120 Tasmania-geo-stubs, but the Australia-geo-stub category is currently only at around 300 stubs after the recent removal of those for the four largest states (in terms of stub numbers). Grutness...wha? 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... this has been quiet for a few days, so I'll start moving them one or two at a time to SFD for official renaming. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with Canberra stub changes--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add support or otherwise at WP:SFD. Hopefully after all the discussion here there shouldn't be any major opposition to the changes. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - the Hobart, Canberra and Adelaide changes have gone ahead. I'll take the others to SFD now. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*B and *G codes

I'd like to propose adding *B and *G codes to the list to indicate that there ate biography and geography stubs associated with a particular stub type. This would cut down on the number of additional lines needed to indicate child stub types, especially the *B code which would be useful for things besides regions: For example:

Current

Proposed

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

Split sportbio-stub?

Recently I've been writing biographies on sport shooters, some of which have been stubs, and I've marked them with sportbio-stub. However, I see that they completely drowned in Category:Sportspeople stubs, where A alone takes up an entire page. I'm pretty confident that nobody would argue against the need for some kind of split here, so the question is how. Should every subcategory in Category:Sportspeople by sport have its own stub type (which will ensure that sport writers who are experts in a single sport or two will find them, but might result in some very sparsely populated stub types), or should we try to find the most commonly bio-stubbed sports and separate them until the main stub type is not unwieldly anymore (which will probably mean much more work and that most sports will get their own stub types anyway)? -- Jao 12:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would lean toward splitting out the sports that have bunches of stubs in order to reduce the number in the catch-all stub category. With that being said, if there's a need for a sport shooter bio stub today that would help you, then propose it. (You might want to also consider creating a Wikiproject for sport shooters, if it doesn't already exist.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR there was a bit of a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting recently as to what would be a good topic to knock into shape now that the bio-stubs are under control... this would be a good possibility for that. There are probably quite a few sports that could do with separate stubs (not all of them, just - as F-o-P said - those with large numbers of stubs). Grutness...wha? 13:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I did some simple Google searches (site:en.wikipedia.org "This biographical article relating to sports is a stub." "Alpine skiers" etc.). This catches redirects as well, and is not up-to-date, but it should give a fairly good estimate of which categories have most stubs:

  1. Athletes (313)
  2. Badminton players (96)
  3. Boxers (67)
  4. Triathletes (66)
  5. Figure skaters (58)
  6. Archers (35)
  7. Gymnasts (35)
  8. Swimmers (33)
  9. Tennis players (30)
  10. Bodybuilders (15)
  11. Rowers (15)
  12. Alpine skiers (14)
  13. Cyclists (14)
  14. Speed skaters (13)
  15. Canoers (12)
  16. Judoka (12)

The rest have 8 or less. There are also some that should be sorted into existing stub types, but that has little to do with this discussion. Now, besides Athletes, the numbers are not very high -- it's just that the total number is. And so, to answer the question, yes, I would be helped by a sport shooter stub type, but not because there are so many sport shooter stubs -- just because there are so many unsorted sportspeople stubs.. If all the above were sorted out, we would have about a hundred sportbio-stubs left. -- Jao 08:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting off {{boxingbio-stub}}, {{badmintonbio-stub}}, {{skatingbio-stub}} (the latter for both speed and figure skating) would be very useful. Obviously {{athlete-stub}} looks like it would as well, but... which definition of "athlete" does this use? If it's the standard Commonwealth English definition, that's fine (i.e., what Americans call track and field athletes), but many of the articles you've counted may use the American definition, which covers a wide variety of sports. Personally, I'd suggest an {{athlete-stub}} (currently one exists as a redirect) as well (which could probably accommodate the triathletes as well), but I wouldn't expect it to get to 313 articles. As to the numbers for the other sports disciplines, many of the sportspeople are probably listed in the categories for their specific sports (tennis players in Category:Tennis stubs, for instance), which would boos numbers. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I'll officially propose these three further up the page in the October proposals section. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This section is for general discussion or proposals relating to stub types and stub sorting. Proposals for specific stub types should go in the current month's section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals&oldid=25398555"